{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_p1532coll1_12592","title":"Holmes, Morris, Jr., interview","collection_id":"bcas_p1532coll1","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Audio Collection","dcterms_contributor":["Johnson, Jajuan S."],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Holmes, Morris L., Jr., 1939-"],"dc_date":["2007-02-20"],"dcterms_description":["Describes his education in the segregated school system and his career as an educator and administrator. Dr. Holmes taught in Arkansas, Texas, and Louisiana. And he describes the changes he has seen in education."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Ruled By Race"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas--History","Segregation in education--Arkansas","African Americans--Education (Secondary)--Arkansas","African American teachers--Arkansas"],"dcterms_title":["Holmes, Morris, Jr., interview"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p1532coll1/id/12592"],"dcterms_temporal":["1940/1990"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["compact discs"],"dcterms_extent":["00:54:19","50,940 KB"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"suc_tomcrosbystr_86","title":"Willie Jeffries oral history interview, 2007 February 14","collection_id":"suc_tomcrosbystr","collection_title":"Tom Crosby’s Rosenwald School Oral History Collection, 2006-2011","dcterms_contributor":["Crosby, Tom, 1940-","South Caroliniana Library. Office of Oral History"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, South Carolina, Union County, 34.68928, -81.61942","United States, South Carolina, Union County, Union, McBeth Elementary School","United States, South Carolina, Union County, Union, Sims High School, 34.70097, -81.6101"],"dcterms_creator":["Jeffries, Willie, 1937-"],"dc_date":["2007-02-14"],"dcterms_description":["In this oral history interview, Willie E. Jeffries discusses his educational experiences at McBeth Elementary and Sims High School (Union County, South Carolina) playing sports, the influence of his teachers, principals, and coaches, Rosenwald Day celebrations including a song, Indiana University, South Carolina State College (now South Carolina State University) Granard School (Gaffney, Cherokee County, SC), his career coaching football at North Carolina A\u0026T University, University of Pittsburgh, South Carolina State, Wichita State University, and Howard University, becoming the first African-American head coach of a NCAA Division I football program (Wichita State) in 1979. Willie Edison Jeffries was born in 1937. In 1979, Jeffries became the first African-American head coach of a NCAA Division I football program (Wichita State). He was elected to the College Football Hall of Fame in 2010. Tom Crosby interviewed Willie Jeffries on February 14, 2007. Interview covers Jeffries' education at McBeth Elementary School from 1943 to 1951 and at Sims High School from 1952 to 1956."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Columbia, S.C. : University of South Carolina. South Caroliniana Library"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Tom Crosby oral history collection, 2006-2011","Jeffries, Willie 14Feb2006 CROS 005"],"dcterms_subject":["Jeffries, Willie, 1937---Interviews","Sims High School (Union, S.C.)--Alumni and alumnae--Interviews","High school athletes--South Carolina--Union County--History","African American football coaches--South Carolina--Interviews","African Americans--Social life and customs--20th century","African American schools--South Carolina--Union County--History--20th century","African Americans--Education--South Carolina--History--20th century","African Americans--South Carolina--Interviews"],"dcterms_title":["Willie Jeffries oral history interview, 2007 February 14"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["South Caroliniana Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digital.tcl.sc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/tomcrosbystr/id/86"],"dcterms_temporal":["1939/1945","1946/1954","1955/1969"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Copyright: University of South Carolina. The transcript and audio are provided for individual Research Purposes Only; for all other uses, including publication, reproduction, and quotation beyond fair use, permission must be obtained in writing from: The South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, 910 Sumter Street, Columbia, SC 29208"],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["1 sound disc (38 min., 28 sec.) : digital, stereo. ; 4 3/4 in.;1 audiocassette (38 min., 28 sec.) : stereo. ; 3 7/8 x 2 1/2 in."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"suc_tomcrosbystr_58","title":"John Haynesworth oral history interview, 2007 February 11","collection_id":"suc_tomcrosbystr","collection_title":"Tom Crosby’s Rosenwald School Oral History Collection, 2006-2011","dcterms_contributor":["Crosby, Tom, 1940-","South Caroliniana Library. Office of Oral History"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, South Carolina, Sumter County, 33.91617, -80.38232","United States, South Carolina, Sumter County, Sumter, Bates Junior High School","United States, South Carolina, Sumter County, Sumter, Lincoln High School, 33.91877, -80.34758","United States, South Carolina, Sumter County, Sumter, Savage Glover Elementary School"],"dcterms_creator":["Haynesworth, John, 1951-"],"dc_date":["2007-02-11"],"dcterms_description":["In this oral history interview, John Haynesworth discusses his educational experiences in Sumter County at Savage-Glover Elementary, Bates Junior High, and Lincoln High School, South Carolina State College (now South Carolina State University) and his subsequent coaching and administrative duties at Allen University, Spring Valley High School, Richland Northeast High School, Withers Elementary School (all located in Richland County) and Mount Pleasant High School (Charleston County). John Haynesworth was born in 1951 in Sumter County, South Carolina. Tom Crosby interviewed John Haynesworth at his office on the Allen University campus in Columbia, South Carolina, on February 11, 2007. Interview covers Haynesworth's education at Savage Glover Elementary (of Sumter, S.C.) and Bates Junior High Schools (of Sumter, S.C.) from the late 1950s to the mid-1960s and at Lincoln High School (of Sumter, S.C.) from 1965 to 1969."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Columbia, S.C. : University of South Carolina. South Caroliniana Library"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Tom Crosby oral history collection, 2006-2011","Haynesworth, John 11Feb2007 CROS 041"],"dcterms_subject":["Haynesworth, John, 1951---Interviews","South Carolina State College--Alumni and alumnae--Interviews","South Carolina State University--Alumni and alumnae--Interviews","African American teachers--South Carolina--Interviews","African American school administrators--South Carolina--Interviews","African Americans--Social life and customs--20th century","African American schools--South Carolina--Sumter County--History--20th century","African Americans--Education--South Carolina--History--20th century","African Americans--South Carolina--Interviews"],"dcterms_title":["John Haynesworth oral history interview, 2007 February 11"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["South Caroliniana Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digital.tcl.sc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/tomcrosbystr/id/58"],"dcterms_temporal":["1955/1969"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Copyright: University of South Carolina. The transcript and audio are provided for individual Research Purposes Only; for all other uses, including publication, reproduction, and quotation beyond fair use, permission must be obtained in writing from: The South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, 910 Sumter Street, Columbia, SC 29208"],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["1 sound disc (40 min., 15 sec.) : digital, stereo. ; 4 3/4 in.;1 audiocassette (40 min., 15 sec.) : stereo. ; 3 7/8 x 2 1/2 in."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"gych_rogp_013","title":"Elizabeth \"Betty\" Vandiver and Jane Kidd on Ernest Vandiver, 09 February 2007.","collection_id":"gych_rogp","collection_title":"Reflections on Georgia Politics oral history collection, 2006-2010","dcterms_contributor":["Short, Bob, 1932-"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018"],"dcterms_creator":["Short, Bob, 1932","Vandiver, Betty Russell, 1925"],"dc_date":["2007-02-09"],"dcterms_description":["Ernest Vandiver's wife Betty and his daughter Jane recall memories of the former Georgia governor. They discuss the efforts to improve conditions at Central State Hospital, integration at the University of Georgia, Governor Vandiver's military career, and the role of political parties in Georgia in the mid-twentieth century and in 2007.","Finding aid available in repository.","Sybil Elizabeth \"Betty\" Russell Vandiver was born in Atlanta, Georgia in 1925. The niece of Richard B. Russell, she grew up in Winder, Georgia. In 1947, she graduated from the University of Georgia and married Samuel Ernest Vandiver of Lavonia, Georgia, with whom she had three children. She helped him campaign successfully for lieutenant governor, a post Vandiver was elected to in 1954. In 1958, Vandiver was elected governor of Georgia. As first lady, Betty Vandiver was instrumental in improving the quality of care at Milledgeville's Central State Hospital, Georgia's first mental institution. Ernest Vandiver's subsequent campaigns for governor (1966) and U.S. Senate (1972) proved unsuccessful, and the Vandivers retired from politics. They remained active in the business and community affairs of Lavonia.","Interviewed by Bob Short.","Jane Brevard Vandiver Kidd was born February 12, 1953. As the daughter of Georgia Governor S. Ernest Vandiver (1959-1963) and grand-niece of Senator Richard B. Russell, Jr., Kidd was involved in politics early, serving as chair of Youth for Herman Talmadge in Talmadge's 1968 Senate campaign, and campaigning for her father during his 1972 US Senate campaign. She graduated from the University of Georgia's Grady College of Journalism in 1975, and in 1980 she won a seat on the Lavonia City Council, which she kept for three terms. In 1992 she was Don Johnson's campaign manager in his successful run for Congress, and served as Johnson's district director. In 2004 Kidd was elected to the state house, serving for one term before mounting an unsuccessful bid for a state senate seat. In 2007 she was elected chair of the Democratic Party of Georgia."],"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Athens, Ga. : Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Reflections on Georgia Politics Oral History Collection","http://sclfind.libs.uga.edu/sclfind/view?docId=ead/RBRL220ROGP.xml"],"dcterms_subject":["Georgia--Governor (1959-1963 : Vandiver)","University of Georgia","Central State Hospital (Milledgeville, Ga.)","College integration--Georgia--Athens--History","Legislators--Georgia--Interviews","Governors--Georgia","Political parties--Georgia--History","College integration","Governors","Legislators","Political parties","Politics and government","Georgia--Politics and government","Georgia","Georgia--Athens"],"dcterms_title":["Elizabeth \"Betty\" Vandiver and Jane Kidd on Ernest Vandiver, 09 February 2007."],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://purl.libs.uga.edu/russell/RBRL220ROGP-013/video"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Reflections on Georgia Politics Oral History Collection, ROGP 013 Elizabeth \"Betty\" Vandiver and Jane Kidd on Ernest Vandiver. Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies, The University of Georgia Libraries."],"dlg_local_right":["Before material from collections at the Richard B. Russell Library may be quoted in print, or otherwise reproduced, Resources may be used under the guidelines described by the U.S. Copyright Office in Section 107, Title 17, United States Code (Fair use). Parties interested in production or commercial use of the resources should contact the Russell Library for a fee schedule."],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)","interviews"],"dcterms_extent":["1 interview (109 min.) : sd., col."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Vandiver, Betty Russell, 1925-","Kidd, Jane Brevard Vandiver, 1953-","Vandiver, S. Ernest (Samuel Ernest), 1918-2005"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"fda_dap","title":"Devery Anderson papers","collection_id":null,"collection_title":null,"dcterms_contributor":["Anderson, Devery S.","Parker, Wheeler, 1939-","Wright, Simeon, 1942-2017"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2007-02-07"],"dcterms_description":["Collection holds newspaper articles, publications, interviews, and notes collected and created by author Devery Anderson during research for publications on Emmett Till, including his 2015 monograph Emmett Till: The Murder That Shocked the World and Propelled the Civil Rights Movement."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Lynching"],"dcterms_title":["Devery Anderson papers"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Florida State University Libraries. Special Collections"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/islandora/object/fsu:deveryandersoncoll"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This work is in copyright in the United States. It is provided here for scholarship, research, and private study. Further re-use or copying of the work beyond Fair Use may require permission from the rightsholder."],"dcterms_medium":["interviews"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Till, Emmett, 1941-1955"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"fda_dap_776660","title":"Wheeler Parker and Simeon Wright Interview","collection_id":"fda_dap","collection_title":"Devery Anderson Papers","dcterms_contributor":["Anderson, Devery S.","Parker, Wheeler, 1939-","Wright, Simeon, 1942-2017"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2007-02-07"],"dcterms_description":["Wheeler Parker and Simeon Wright discuss Emmett Till with Devery Anderson.","Audio files have been edited slightly to eliminate noise and long silences present on the original recording."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Devery Anderson Papers--https://purl.lib.fsu.edu/fa/MSS_2015-009"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":null,"dcterms_title":["Wheeler Parker and Simeon Wright Interview"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Florida State University Libraries. Special Collections"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://purl.lib.fsu.edu/diginole/FSU_MSS2015-009_B009_I004_parent"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This work is in copyright in the United States. It is provided here for scholarship, research, and private study. Further re-use or copying of the work beyond Fair Use may require permission from the rightsholder."],"dcterms_medium":["interviews"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Till, Emmett, 1941-1955"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_80","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2007-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/80"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner .Educatilfn 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http:/ /ArkansasEd.org February 28, 2007 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 RECEIVED Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III MAR 2 - 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of February 2007 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Scott Richardson, Attorney General's Office STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton  MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for February 2007. Respectfully Submitted, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on February 28, 2007, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SamuelJones,III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 201 RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAR 2 - 2007 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS\" V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENOR$ ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 B. Include all Magnet students in the res ident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 calcula ed a E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 Calculated for FY 06/07, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1 . Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 In September 2002, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 02/03  were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1 . Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 In January 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. In September 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. In September 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 06/07 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 In February 2006, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 2006, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $2,831 ,266.66 NLRSD - $569,433.04 PCSSD-$1 ,948,253.16 In September 2006, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2006, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $4,200,321.00 NLRSD - $975,891 .96 PCSSD - $3,062,606.93 In September 2006, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 06/07 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2006, the following had been paid for FY 06/07: LRSD - $1 ,413,384.34 NLRSD - $333,217.73 PCSSD - $1 ,074,447.23 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001 , paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In October 2005, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 05/06 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2006, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 06/07 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1 ,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. . The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001 . The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001 , the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,135.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $54,990.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Cnntinued) 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 t\u0026gt;f the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of eactH, t)Ool year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. Q. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,00D,000 in loan proceeds. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process.and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97 /98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) Distribution in July 2003 fur FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 06/07. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01 /02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01 /02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. 11 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 06/07. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black studenis and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced vis its of scho,ols in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations . The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was inclu d-ed in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were \\/isited , and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals we.re interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed b~ prin cipals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation stafftofacilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Repo rt and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the Sl ate Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring vi sits werie completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics . 1he Districts 1Provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. 1he Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a defin ition for insi ruction al programs. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and fi led with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strateg ic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, techn ical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives o(all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed , and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed , c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the . parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review tne  Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On July 26, 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11 , 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11 , 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the AD E's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201 -A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11 , 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11 , 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Will ie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11 , 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the AD E's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized . The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith , ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 20 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasability study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On June 20, 2006, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. ADE staff from the Office of Public School Academic Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The purpose, content, and due date for information going into the Project Management Tool and its Executive Summary were reported. There was discussion about the three districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2006 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 21 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 8. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation.  1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. - - In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 24 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing , no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported  to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11 , 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 26 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-8 at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-8 at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001 , the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 27 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. 8. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMTwas the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the StateBoard of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21 , 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11 , 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11 , 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 36 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On July 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11 , 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11 , 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 37 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11 , 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 38 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July.  On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11 , 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11 , 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 39 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and De~ember. On February 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 8, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. 40 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On August 14, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11 , 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11 , 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 17, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. 41 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31 , 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed , and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning . A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97 /98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregatio\"n Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31 , 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children . Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful'student achievement.    In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21, 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing , Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing , Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program , and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program , and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action ,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following : 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when , (i.e. , parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACT MP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing . Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading , writing, and mathematics skills. The following train ing has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your ch ild's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001 , Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001 , Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell , Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield , ASE RC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading . On February 12-23, 2001 , the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On March 15, 2001 , there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001 . Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001 , ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001 , ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001 , ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001 , there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001 , a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended.  The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31, 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing , and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching . This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum . A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for techn ical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001. Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001 . Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001 . Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11 , 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher\". Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001 , the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001. The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001 . The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001. The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001 . The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001 . Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0 . Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social stud ies learning. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 58 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31 , 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21 , 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Home, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock. A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training . The NLRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam tra ining and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training . The AD\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1762","title":"Court filings regarding Court order declaring the Little Rock School District (LRSD) unitary, letter seeking counsel's position, notice of electronic filing, and notice of docket correction re: motion for reconsideration.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2007-02/2007-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","Joshua intervenors","School districts","Little Rock School District","School integration","African Americans--Education","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Court order declaring the Little Rock School District (LRSD) unitary, letter seeking counsel's position, notice of electronic filing, and notice of docket correction re: motion for reconsideration."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1762"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["47 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, order declaring the Little Rock School District (LRSD) unitary; District Court, letter seeking counsel's position; District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of electronic filing, notice of docket correction re: motion for reconsideration    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED FEB 2 3 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR/NG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ORDER DECLARING THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT UNIT ARY I. Introduction1 In early 1998, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Joshua Intervenors2 (\"Joshua\") negotiated and voluntarily entered into the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan ( the \"Revised Plan\"),3 as a way of settling what was then over forty years of more or less continuous desegregation litigation.4 On April l 0, 1998, the Court approved the Revised Plan, 5 which required LRSD to substantially comply with hundreds of desegregation obligations in order to achieve unitary 11 once again note that United States Magistrate Judge Joe Thomas Ray has done a tremendous amount of work on this case throughout -- for which I am profoundly thankful. 2The Joshua Intervenors are a group of African-American school children, some of whom are enrolled in each of the three Pulaski County school districts. Thus, Joshua serves as the class representative for all African-American students enrolled in LRSD, the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), and the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\"). Joshua's Petition to Intervene in this action was granted on May 24, 1984. (Doc. No. 565.) 3Doc. No. 3107, Ex. A. 4The complete history of this desegregation litigation is set forth in LRSD v. PCSSD, et al., 237 F. Supp. 2d 988, 997-1020 (E.D. Ark. 2002) (\"LRSD I\"). 5Doc. No. 3144. status and release from court supervision.6 Many of these obligations go well beyond what either the United States Supreme Court or the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held is constitutionally required in order for a school district to be deemed unitary. Nevertheless, by voluntarily entering into the Revised Plan, LRSD became contractually bound to satisfy all of the specified desegregation obligations. 7 Since the meaning of some of the terms of the Revised Plan were questioned by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in its 2006 decision,8 I quote, as background for the following discussion, the Restatement of Contracts: ( l) Where the parties have attached the same meaning to a promise or agreement or a term thereof, it is interpreted in accordance with that meaning.9 A. LRSD's March 15, 2001 Application for Unitary Status On March 15, 200 l, LRSD moved for unitary status on the ground that it had substantially complied with all of the obligations in the Revised Plan.10 On June 25, 2001, Joshua filed an Opposition to LRSD's Compliance Report11 which argued that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with most of the obligations in the Revised Plan. On March 15, 2002, LRSD filed a 6The Eighth Circuit has repeatedly recognized that the Revised Plan represents a settlement agreement which contractually obligates LRSD to fulfill the specified desegregation obligations. LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8th Cir. 1996). In Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 1997), the Court characterized the settlement agreement as \"a particularization of federal [desegregation] law applicable to these parties.\" 1LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 103, 1017 (8th Cir. 1996). 8LRSD v. NLRSD, et al., 451 F.3d 528 (8th Cir. 2006). 9RESTATEMENT(SECOND)OFCONTRACTS  201 (1981). 10Doc. No. 3410. 11Doc. No. 3447. -2- Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status. 12 On May 30, 2002, Joshua filed a Response13 opposing that Motion. I conducted a series of unitary status hearings during the second half of 2001 and the first half of 2002. During these hearings, over forty witnesses testified, and the parties introduced into evidence thousands of pages of exhibits. On September I 3, 2002, I entered a Memorandum Opinion ( the \"September 2002 Decision\") finding that LRSD had substantially complied with all of its obligations in the Revised Plan except those specified in 2.7.1. 14 Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan obligated LRSD to satisfy the following obligations: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to  2. 7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievements. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. 15 I found that, while LRSD had implemented numerous  2. 7 programs designed to improve the academic achievement of African-American students, the evidence established that it had done very little to assess the effectiveness of those programs, on a year-to-year basis, as required by  2. 7 .1 . The Findings of Fact in LRSD I discussed the substantial evidence which revealed that LRSD' stop administrators and Joshua both construed 2. 7 .1 's requirement that LRSD \"shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to 2.7 after each year\" to mean that LRSD must 12Doc. No. 3580. 13Doc. No. 3604. 14LRSD I, 237 F. Supp. 2d 988. 15Doc. No. 3107, Ex. A -3- perform \"program assessments\" and \"program evaluations.\" 16 Witnesses for LRSD and Joshua testified that both parties understood the term \"assess,\" as used in 2.7.l, to be a term of art requiring LRSD to prepare annual assessments and evaluations of the 2. 7 programs. While 2. 7. l does not mention the word \"evaluation,\" the evidence established beyond peradventure that LRSD clearly understood that its obligation to assess the 2.7 programs required it to prepare not only program assessments but also program evaluations in order to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. B. The 2002 Compliance Remedy In subpart A of the 2002 Memorandum Opinion, I tracked the language the parties used in  2. 7 .1 and required LRSD to assess each of the programs implemented under 2. 7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students during the entire 2002-03 school year and the - first semester of the 2003-04 school year. I did not spell out that LRSD was required to prepare evaluations of specific 2. 7 programs because the testimony of the parties during the 2002 unitary status hearing made it clear that they understood the term \"assess\" to include both assessments and evaluations of the  2. 7 programs. Therefore, to comply with subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy, LRSD was expected to continue to prepare program assessments and to prepare program evaluations of the most promising  2. 7 programs that it planned to implement during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year. Subpart B required LRSD to maintain written records documenting how it had gone about assessing the 2.7 programs. 16LRSD I, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1076-77. (\"Not to put too fine a point on it\", but since there appears to be some confusion about the required \"evaluations\", this order will be quite redundant on this point). -4- Subpart C required LRSD to complete and file program evaluations on the fourteen  2. 7 programs listed on page 148 ofLRSD' s Final Compliance Report. This Final Compliance Report, 17 filed on March 15, 200 l, detailed everything that LRSD had done to meet its compliance obligations under each section of the Revised Plan. Importantly, this Final Compliance Report reflects precisely how LRSD construed its desegregation obligations under each section of the Revised Plan. On page 148, under the heading \"Section H Program Evaluation,\" LRSD cited \"Section 2.7.l\" as creating the obligation to prepare fourteen program evaluations of 2. 7 programs. Since 1998, Dr. Steven Ross has worked extensively with PRE to improve the program evaluation process. LRSD accepted his recommendation and hired Dr. John Nunnery, who was supposed to prepare most of the evaluations of the fourteen specifically identified  2. 7 programs. 18 In the March 15, 2002 Final Compliance Report, LRSD unequivocally admits that it knew, understood, and construed the obligation in 2.7.l to assess the 2.7 programs as requiring it to prepare evaluations of some of the  2. 7 programs. 19 In the Final Compliance Report, LRSD stated that, as of March 15, 200 I, PRE20 staff and Dr. Nunnery had prepared evaluations on all fourteen of the 2. 7 programs identified on page 148. During the 2002 unitary status hearings, however, LRSD administrators admitted that only six of the fourteen evaluations actually had been completed. These fourteen evaluations of specific  2. 7 programs were supposed to have been prepared during the 1999, 2000, and 2001 school years (at 17Doc. No. 3410. 18See LRSD's Final Compliance Report at page 148 (Doc. No. 3410). 19Consistent with LRSD's explicit acknowledgment of this obligation in subpart Hof the Final Compliance Report, Dr. Bonnie Lesley and other top LRSD administrators testified during the 2002 unitary status hearing that they understood 2.7. l's obligation to assess the 2.7 programs as requiring LRSD to perform annual evaluations of some of the  2. 7 programs. 20PRE stands for Planning, Research, and Evaluation. -5- the rate of approximately four per year) using testing and p e,formance data generated during those three school years. Subpart C of the 2002 Compliance Remedy required LRSD to prepare the eight missing program evaluations from the three previous school years. Everyone understood that, in preparing these evaluations, LRSD would use student testing and performance data from the 1999 through 2001 school years to determine the effectiveness of those 2.7 programs during those school years. Thus, subpart C of the 2002 Compliance Remedy required LRSD to catch up on the annual  2. 7 program evaluations, for the previous three years, which the Final Compliance Report erroneously stated LRSD had already prepared. So, subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy required LRSD to prepare assessments and evaluations of 2. 7 programs during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year. Because subpart C of the 2002 Compliance Remedy required LRSD to prepare - evaluations of 2. 7 programs to determine their effectiveness in school years before the 2002-03 school year, everyone understood that the eight page-148 program evaluations required in subpart C could not be used by LRSD to satisfy the program evaluation obligation in subpart A, which required it to prepare evaluations of the  2. 7 programs during the 2002-03 school year and the first six months of the 2003-04 school year.21 On the record this admits ofno doubt. Finally, LRSD was given until March 15, 2004, to demonstrate that it was in substantial compliance with  2. 7. l, as outlined in subparts A, B, and C of the 2002 Compliance Remedy. 22 21This explains why, after it prepared the eight evaluations required by subpart C, LRSD proceeded to prepare two global evaluations of its Literacy and Math and Science curricula for the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year. These two global evaluations were clearly intended to satisfy LRSD's obligation under subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy. 22LRSD I. 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1087-88. -6- C. The Eighth Circuit Affirms the September 2002 Decision Joshua appealed the September 2002 Decision to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 2, 2004, the Court entered an opinion affirming the September 2002 Decision.23 Because LRSD did not cross-appeal, it gave up any right to complain about the obligations imposed on it in subparts A, B, and C of the 2002 Compliance Remedy. D. LRSD's March 12, 2004 Application for Unitary Status On March 12, 2004, LRSD filed a Compliance Report24 seeking unitary status on the ground that it had substantially complied with 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and subparts A, B, and C of the 2002 Compliance Remedy. On April 15, 2004, Joshua filed papers25 opposing LRSD's request for unitary status. On June 14 and 15, 2004, a unitary status hearing was held. During this hearing, it was revealed that, shortly after I entered the 2002 Compliance Remedy, numerous top LRSD administrators had resigned, including the Superintendent; Dr. Bonnie Lesley, the Associated Superintendent in charge of Curriculum and Education; and most of the rest of the employees in the PRE Department. LRSD' s remaining administrators testified at the hearing that because of this mass exodus they were unsure about how LRSD should go about satisfying subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy. This was not brought to my attention until the 2004 hearing. Inexplicably, LRSD decided it could satisfy subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy by preparing two \"global evaluations\" ofLRSD's Literacy Curriculum and its Math and Science Curriculum. As previously mentioned, subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy used the same language contained in  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan, and required LRSD to assess the  2. 7 23LRSD v. Armstrong, 359 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2004). 24Doc. No. 3837. 25Doc. Nos. 3856 and 3857. -7- programs.26 After the September 2002 Decision, LRSD's administrators decided the obligation to assess  2.7 programs could be satisfied by preparing only two \"global evaluations\" of LRSD's Literacy curriculum and Math and Science curriculum. This establishes clearly that LRSD construed the phrase \"assess 2. 7 programs, \"as used in 2. 7.1, to mean that it was required to prepare program evaluations -- not just program assessments. On June 30, 2004, I entered a Memorandum Opinion (the \"June 2004 Decision\"), holding that these two global evaluations fell far short of 2.7.1 's requirement that LRSD must annually assess specific  2. 7 programs in order to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students.27 The best way to understand the shortcomings of LRSD's \"global approach\" to complying with 2.7.1 is through a concrete example of what the plain language of 2. 7 .1 and subpart A of the Compliance Remedy actually obligated LRSD to do. During the 2002-03 and 2003-04 school years, LRSD implemented numerous 2. 7 programs to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. One such program, which was implemented in elementary schools throughout the district, was the Pre-K Literacy Program. During the 2002 and 2004 unitary status hearings, testimony established that the Pre-K Literacy Program was one ofLRSD's most promising 2.7 programs. IfLRSD had hired Dr. Ross or some other similarly qualified consultant to perform evaluations of the Pre-K Literacy program and three orfour other specific 2.7 programs, during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 26During the 2002 unitary status hearing, LRSD' s witnesses made it clear that they knew and understood the word \"assess,\" as it was used in  2.7.1, to mean that LRSD must prepare assessments and evaluations as part of its obligation to \"assess\" the  2. 7 programs. This is also precisely how LRSD had construed its obligation under 2. 7 .1 in the years following its execution of the Revised Plan in 1998, as evidenced by page 148 ofLRSD's Final Compliance Report filed on March 15, 2001. Thus, I felt sure LRSD understood that the obligation to assess the  2.7 programs meant that it must prepare both assessments and evaluations of specific  2. 7 programs. 21LRSD v. PCSSD, eta/., No. 4:82CV00866, 2004 WL 5187587 (E.D. Ark. June 30, 2004) (\"LRSD If'). -8- school year, I would have had no difficulty finding that it had substantially complied with the program evaluation obligation contained in  2. 7. l and subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy. Instead of evaluating specific  2.7 programs, however, LRSD's administrators tried to satisfy 2.7. l by hiring Dr. Ross and another outside consultant to perform \"global evaluations\" of LRSD's overall Literacy Curriculum and its Math and Science Curriculum. These evaluations amounted to nothing more than a survey of LRSD's complete program curricula in the areas of literacy, math, and science. Neither evaluation attempted to address the effectiveness of any of the specific 2.7 programs implemented to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. As a result, these global evaluations provided no usefal guidance on how any of the specific  2. 7 programs were working to improve African-American achievement. During the June 2004 evidentiary hearing, Dr. Ross, himself, (and the other experts who prepared the two global - evaluations) admitted that these \"step l\" global evaluations did not satisfy the plain language of 2.7.1 (which, as noted above, required LRSD to prepare \"step 2\" evaluations of specific  2.7 programs to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students). As was set forth in the June 2004 Decision, the obligations in 2.7. l go to the very heart of what Joshua contracted to receive from LRSD in agreeing to the Revised Plan: It is impossible to overstate the importance of 2.7.1 to LRSD's African-American students. Unless something is done to improve their academic achievement, many of them, who do not possess proficient skills in reading and math, will face difficult and uncertain futures. Because 70% of its students are African-American, LRSD should be devoting a substantial percentage of its educational resources to solving this crucially important problem that will burden the lives and career trajectories of so many of its students. It is my fervent hope that LRSD's administrators and its Board realize that LRSD must make the long-term commitment to solve this problem, not because a federal court says that it must, but because it is the right thing to do.28 28LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *20 (emphasis in original). -9- Based on the evidence introduced during the evidentiary hearing on June 14 and 15, 2004, I was at a loss to understand how LRSD could have concluded that the two \"global evaluations\" substantially complied with  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy. Accordingly, I denied LRSD's request for unitary status.29 During the June 14 and 15, 2004 unitary status hearing, LRSD administrators complained that, because subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy did not spell out precisely what they were supposed to do to satisfy the obligations in  2. 7 .1, they were unsure of how to proceed. I was puzzled by this professed confusion so, to avoid any future confusion about what the language in  2.7. l required, the 2004 Compliance Remedy spelled out the specific obligations that LRSD must meet in order to satisfy the requirements of 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan.30 However, I did so with some reluctance and only because I was genuinely concerned that, unless I restated those obligations in very specific terms, LRSD might once again fail to substantially comply with 2.7.1: In the (2002) Compliance Remedy, I was reluctant to set forth too much detail about how LRSD should structure its program assessment process. Professional educators ought to be able to do a better job than I could in formulating and implementing this process; but LRSD is found wanting in its handling of its duties under subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy.31 E. The Eighth Circuit Affirms the June 2004 Decision LRSD appealed the June 2004 Decision to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Ironically, on appeal, LRSD argued, among other things, that the 2004 Compliance Remedy was too specific and imposed obligations that went beyond what it had agreed to do under  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. On June 26, 2006, the Eighth Circuit entered its opinion affirming the June 2004 Decision.32 29/d at **20-29. 30/d. at **32-35. 31/d. at *22. 32LRSD v. NLRSD, et al., 451 F.3d 528 (8th Cir. 2006). -10- However, both the majority and dissent expressed concern that some aspects of the 2004 Compliance Remedy may have gone beyond the obligations LRSD agreed to undertake in  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. F. LRSD's October 16, 2006 Application for Unitary Status On October 16, 2006, LRSD filed a Compliance Report33 detailing everything that it has done to satisfy the 2004 Compliance Remedy and  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. LRSD asserts that, because it has now substantially complied with the 2004 Compliance Remedy, it should be declared unitary and released from court supervision and monitoring. On November 16, 2006, Joshua filed Objections to LRSD's Compliance Report and Opposition to LRSD's Request for Unitary Status.34 On January 20, 21, and 27, 2007, I conducted another unitary status hearing. LRSD called fifteen witnesses who testified about LRSD's substantial compliance with 2.7.1 of the Revised - Plan, as those obligations are contained in the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Joshua called nineteen witnesses who testified that LRSD needed to do more still in order to comply with its obligations. The parties again introduced into evidence thousands of pages of exhibits. Because the Eighth Circuit's recently expressed concerns about whether the 2004 Compliance Remedy imposed obligations on LRSD that went beyond those contained in  2. 7 .1, I believe it is important for me to address that issue before I reach the merits of LRSD' s substantial compliance. 33Doc. No. 4050. 34Doc. No. 4058. - ------ -11- II. LRSD's Obligations Under The 2004 Compliance Remedy And Why It Was Required By 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan A. LRSD Must Reestablish Its PRE Department As previously discussed, between mid-2002 and June of 2004, LRSD allowed its PRE Department to collapse.35 During the June 2004 unitary status hearing, Mr. Dennis Glasgow, who in June of 2003 was appointed Interim Associate Superintendent of Instruction and Curriculum to replace Dr. Lesley, testified that: PRE was short of personnel . .. and ... he intended to propose to the Board that it set a high priority on hiring a team of well qualified and experienced professionals capable of reinvigorating PRE. 36 In section A of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, I required LRSD to hire the well qualified and experienced team of professionals that according to Mr. Glasgow was necessary to reestablish an effective PRE Department. I required that this group of professionals include: (1) a director comparable to former director Dr. Lease, someone who hac:l a Ph.D. and experience in designing, preparing, and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations, and in formulating a comprehensive program assessment process to determine the effectiveness of the  2. 7 programs 35Dr. Kathy Lease, the director of PRE, left LRSD in the fall of 2002. Three statisticians and several other support staff left PRE in 2002 and 2003. None of these employees had been replaced at the time I conducted the June 2004 unitary status hearing. At that time, PRE was being run by one statistician, who had no real experience in performing program assessments or preparing program evaluations. Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD's Associate Superintendent oflnstruction and Curriculum, who had considerable knowledge and experience with the program assessment and evaluation process, left LRSD in 2003. She was replaced, on an interim basis, by Dennis Glasgow, who had almost no experience with the program assessment and program evaluation process. LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *21. In LRSD II, I found that the collapse of the PRE Department explained in large part why LRSD's remaining administrators, who had little knowledge about the program assessment and evaluation process, mistakenly determined that two global evaluations ofLRSD's overall program curriculum could somehow satisfy the obligations in  2. 7 .1, which required LRSD to evaluate specific 2. 7 programs. For a complete discussion of how LRSD allowed the PRE Department to - fallapart,seeLRSDiat 1077-81 andLRSD//,2004 WL5187587,at**9-10, *21. 36LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *21. -12- designed to improve the academic achievement of African-American students; (2) experienced statisticians like those who had worked under Dr. Lease; and (3) other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate an effective PRE Department. As indicated above, Section 2.7.1 required LRSD to assess, on an annual basis, the 2.7 programs to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. And, as I have previously explained, LRSD and Joshua both interpreted the term assess in 2.7.1 to be a termofartthatrequired LRSD to perform annual program assessments and program evaluations of the 2.7 programs to determine their effectiveness.37 Finally, this is precisely how LRSD construed 2.7.1, as evidenced by page 148 of the March 15, 2001 Final Compliance Report and in its decision to prepare two global evaluations to satisfy subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy.38 37During the 2002 unitary status hearing, Dr. Lesley's testimony made it very clear that LRSD and Joshua both knew the definitions of and distinctions between a \"program assessment\" and a \"program evaluation.\" Dr. Lesley defined a program assessment as something that is \"dynamic, it is interactive, it's ongoing, it happens frequently, and it is a measurement, along with the analysis that you would make of whatever results are available.\" LRSD I, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1077. In contrast, she defined a program evaluation as \"more long term, it may consider observations or measurements in addition to test scores, and is guided by a set of research questions that are usually provided by whoever the consumer is of that report.\" Id. In LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *2, I summarized the distinction Dr. Lesley made between a program assessment and a program evaluation as follows: [A] program assessment is a relatively informal process that may not result in much documentation, while a program evaluation is a formal process that always involves the preparation of an often lengthy written program evaluation which is centered around carefully prepared research questions that the evaluation is designed to answer. 381n the Eighth Circuit's June 26, 2006 decision, neither the majority nor the dissent addressed the undisputed fact that LRSD and Joshua have always interpreted the word \"assess,\" as used in  2. 7 .1, to mean that LRSD must perform both informal program assessments and the far more rigorous program evaluations in order to determine the effectiveness of 2.7 programs. As a result, the panel erroneously construed  2.7.1 as requiring LRSD to perform program only assessments -- not evaluations -- of the 2.7 programs. LRSD v. NLRSD, 451 F.3d 528, 536-37 (majority), 542 (dissent). In the same vein, the Eighth Circuit suggested that \"this litigation has been complicated by -13- Similarly, while nothing in the Revised Plan explicitly required LRSD to have a PRE Department, it appears that it would have been impossible for LRSD to discharge its program assessment and program evaluation obligations under 2. 7 .1 without one. By the time of the 2004 unitary status hearing, LRSD's PRE Department was no longer functioning and had only one employee, a statistician. By ordering LRSD to reestablish its PRE Department with an experienced and qualified staff, I was requiring LRSD only to restore the status quo ante regarding PRE the shifting terminology employed by LRSD, Joshua, and the district court\" in the use of the terms \"assessment,\" \"evaluation,\" \"program\" and \"key program.\" LRSD v. NLRSD, 451 F.3d at 531-536. I respectfully disagree. From the first unitary status hearings in 2002, LRSD, Joshua, and I have all understood exactly what the term \"assess\" means in 2. 7.1. We all know that this term, which is a term of art, required LRSD to perform both assessments and evaluations of the 2.7 programs. Similarly, we all understand what a 2. 7 program is and which of the 2. 7 programs are the key or most important programs. When I required LRSD to \"assess\" the  2. 7 programs in subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy, LRSD, Joshua, and I all understood this would require LRSD to prepare assessments of many of the 2.7 programs and evaluations of some of the most important 2.7 programs. This explains why LRSD construed subpart A of the Compliance Remedy, which mentioned nothing about program evaluations and required LRSD only to \"assess\" the  2. 7 programs, to mean that it must prepare two global evaluations. During the 2004 unitary status hearing, Dr. Lesley back-tracked from her earlier testimony in the 2002 unitary status hearing and stated that she did not believe 2.7.1 and subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy required LRSD to perform any evaluation of the  2.7 programs. However, she could provide no explanation for why, if she was correct, LRSD had expended hundreds of thousands of dollars to perform evaluations of the 2. 7 programs in order to satisfy its obligations under 2.7.1 as documented in the March 15, 2001 Final Compliance Report and the March 12, 2004 Application for Unitary Status. Finally, Dr. Ross offered compelling testimony explaining why, as a long time consultant to LRSD, he and top LRSD administrators had always construed 2.7.1 's obligations \"to assess the 2.7 programs\" as requiring LRSD also to prepare evaluations of those programs. LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *27. As the finder of fact in the 2004 unitary status hearing, I had an opportunity to closely observe Dr. Lesley and to assess her credibility. In my 2004 Findings of Fact, I stated the following: I do not put much stock in Dr. Lesley's testimony at this last hearing. (Her testimony in the unitary status hearings in 2002 was quite helpful.) Her answers to pointed questions were often indirect and marked by semantics. I got the distinct impression that she wanted to avoid giving answers that would be harmful to LRSD's position. Since I found Dr. Lesley's testimony on this point was not to credible, there is no evidence in either the 2002 or 2004 unitary status hearing to support the notion that 2. 7 .1 required LRSD to perform only program assessments. On the other hand, there is a mountain of evidence which establishes that both LRSD and Joshua have always interpreted \"assess,\" as it was used in  2. 7 .1, to be a term of art that required LRSD to perform program assessments and program evaluations. -14- Department staffing and operations -- something that was essential ifLRSD ever expected to meet its obligations under  2.7. l. I do not believe that section A of the 2004 Compliance Remedy imposed a single new obligation on LRSD that was not part of what it originally agreed to do in order to discharge its obligations under 2.7.l of the Revised Plan.39 I hark back to  201 of the Restatement of Contracts quoted in the introduction. B. LRSD Must Create and \"Deeply Embed\" a Comprehensive Program Assessment Process Section B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, required LRSD to use its PRE Department, in consultation with Dr. Ross, to devise a \"comprehensive program assessment process\" and then to \"deeply embed\" that process as a permanent part ofLRSD's curriculum and instruction program. I defined \"comprehensive program assessment process\" to mean and include both \"formal evaluations\" of key 2.7 programs and \"informal program assessments.',40 During the June 2004 unitary status hearing, LRSD witnesses testified that, each school year, LRSD implemented numerous  2. 7 programs to improve the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. Some of those programs were pilot projects that were only offered at one school to a relatively small number of students. Other  2. 7 programs had been used for several years in numerous schools and were regarded as key  2. 7 programs that appeared to offer the most promise in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The testimony during the 39lnLRSD v. NLRSD, 451 F.3d at 542, the dissent characterized my requiring LRSD to hire a new team for PRE as a \"significant abuse of discretion.\" Based on the entire record -- which reflects the clear, abiding understanding of the parties before the 2004 hearing -- I do not agree. 401n LRSD II, I explained that \"[t]he comprehensive program assessment process must include formal step 2 evaluations of certain key  2.7 programs ... [and] preparing informal program assessments that involve interviews with teachers, informal evaluations oftest scores, and the other things normally associated with the more dynamic program assessment process.\" LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *32. Thus, in requiring LRSD to devise and implement a comprehensive program assessment process, section B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy merely spelled out for LRSD what it knew and understood  2. 7 .1 to mean. -15- June 2004 unitary status hearing made it clear that LRSD and Joshua both had a good understanding what the key  2. 7 programs were. I do not believe that requiring LRSD to evaluate only key  2. 7 programs is a new obligation under 2.7. l, especially since LRSD had been performing annual evaluations on its most important or key  2. 7 programs since it entered the Revised Plan in 1998. The dissent in LRSD v. NLRSD, et al. 41 discussed at length the reasons why requiring LRSD to \"deeply embed\" its program assessment process as a permanent part ofLRSD's curriculum and instruction program imposed a new contractual obligation on LRSD that was not contained in  2. 7. I. of the Revised Plan. The dissent pointed out that: (I) I did not \"identify any objective standards by which [I intended] to measure whether LRSD had succeeded in meeting this \"deeply embedded\" requirement\"; (2) the \"deeply embedded\" requirement was \"impossibly subjective\"; and (3) I created \"the unworkably subjective 'deeply embedded' standard . .. out of whole cloth in the 2004 Remedy.\"42 Upon mature reflection, I wholeheartedly agree with the dissent's criticism ofmy decision to require LRSD to \"deeply embed\" the program assessment process as a permanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. Section 2. 7.1 of the Revised Plan and subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy required LRSD to create and implement a program assessment process capable of allowing it to prepare annual program assessments and program evaluations of the  2.7 programs as a way of determining the effectiveness of those programs in imposing the academic achievement of African-American students. Nothing in either  2.7.1 or the 2002 Compliance Remedy can fairly be construed to mean that LRSD must \"deeply embed\" the program assessment 41451 F.3d at 541-543. 42/d. at 542-43. -16- process as a permanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. 43 Additionally, as the dissent points out, trying to apply an entirely subjective \"deeply embedded\" standard is a bridge too far -like trying to reach the mirage in the desert. In 2.1 of the Revised Plan, LRSD agreed to act in \"good faith\": LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity in the operations of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools.44 In the 2002 Memorandum Opinion, I found that, in the areas in which LRSD was held to be unitary, it had \"complied with its obligations under 2.1 of the Revised Plan and that, in the future, it could be trusted to follow the Covenants and the Constitution.\"45 I now realize that, in section B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, I should have adopted the - \"good faith\" compliance standard imposed under 2.1, rather than crafting a \"deeply embedded\" compliance standard \"out of whole cloth.\"46 The language I should have used in section B, rather than the \"deeply embedded\" standard, is as follows: LRSD must act in good faith (as explicitly required by  2.1 of the Revised Plan) to implement the program assessment process required by  2.7.1 of the RevisedPlan.47 In the Findings ofFact, I will use this \"good faith\" compliance standard 43In hindsight, I probably imposed this new obligation on LRSD because I believe it is so important for LRSD to honor the commitment it made in  2. 7 and  2. 7 .1. Of course, my personal feelings are irrelevant with respect to the plain meaning of 2. 7 .1. 44Doc. No. 3107, Ex. A. 45LRSD I, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1046. 46LRSD v. NLRSD, 451 F.3d at 542. 47While I have acknowledged my error in imposing on LRSD the \"deeply embedded\" obligation, I hope LRSD realizes the need for making the program assessment process a permanent part of its curriculum -- not because a federal judge thought it was a good idea, but because it is the right thing to do to help improve the academic achievement. -17- to determine whether LRSD has substantially complied with section B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, rather than the \"deeply embedded\" compliance standard contained in the June 2004 Decision. C. LRSD Must Prepare Eight Evaluations of Key  2. 7 Programs Over Two Academic School Years (2004-05 and 2005-06) As I have previously explained, on March 15, 2002, a number of months before I began the 2002 unitary status hearing, LRSD filed a Final Compliance Report which documented everything it had done to satisfy all of the obligations in the Revised Plan. On page 148 of that document, LRSD stated that, over the last three years, it had prepared program evaluations on fourteen specifically identified 2.7 programs to satisfy part of its obligations under 2.7.1. However, during the subsequent unitary status hearing, testimony established that, by June 1, 2002, LRSD had prepared only six of the fourteen program evaluations. Once again, it is important to remember that LRSD' s 2002 Final Compliance Report set forth the things LRSD had done to substantially comply with its understanding of the obligations in the Revised Plan. Page 148 of that document makes it crystal clear that LRSD construed 2.7.l 's obligation to assess the 2. 7 programs as requiring it to prepare fourteen program evaluations, over three school years (1999 through 2001). To comply with its own interpretation of 2.7. l , LRSD should have prepared approximately four program evaluations during each of those three years.48 481n subpart C of the 2002 Compliance Remedy, I required LRSD to prepare the eight missing evaluations of the specifically identified 2. 7 programs using testing and performance data generated during the three previous school years when LRSD should have prepared those evaluations. Contrary to the Eighth Circuit's characterization of subparts A and C of the 2002 Compliance Remedy, there was nothing \"bifurcated\" or inconsistent about those respective remedies, both of which were based on the identical interpretation ofLRSD's obligations under 2.7.l of the Revised Plan. LRSD v. NLRSD, 451 F.3d at 536. Similarly, there is nothing in the record from the 2002 and 2004 unitary status hearings which supports the Eighth Circuit's statement that: \"Subpart C of the 2002 Remedy exceeded the scope of the Revised Plan, which lacked any requirement for program evaluations.\" Id. at 537. -18- In the 2004 unitary status hearing, Dr. Ross testified that he believed a school district the size of LRSD should be expected to prepare four or five  2. 7 programs evaluations each year in order to comply with its 2.7.l obligation to assess the effectiveness of the 2.7 programs. This number of annual program evaluations coincided almost exactly with the average number of annual program evaluations LRSD had earlier determined that it was required to prepare, over the 1999 to 2001 school years, in order to comply with its obligations under 2. 7. l .49 Using LRSD's own construction of the number of program evaluations it should prepare each year to satisfy its obligations under 2.7.1, I specified in section C of the 2004 Compliance Remedy that LRSD must prepare program evaluations on four key 2. 7 programs during both the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years. Thus, section C of the 2004 Compliance Remedy did not impose any obligations on LRSD that were not contained in 2. 7 .1, as LRSD had construed and attempted - to implement those obligations since the time it agreed to the Revised Plan in 1998. Rather, it only required LRSD to prepare the same number of annual evaluations of 2.7 programs that: (1) it believed it was required to prepare in order to satisfy its own understanding of its obligation under  2.7.1, as acknowledged on page 148 ofLRSD's 2002 Final Compliance Report; and (2) its own long-time consultant testified was reasonable for a school district the size ofLRSD. Finally, I suggested that LRSD use Dr. Ross to prepare as many of the eight evaluations as possible. As I pointed out in the 2004 Memorandum Opinion, a number of years ago, Joshua agreed, in writing, that Dr. Ross possessed the qualifications necessary to prepare program evaluations and to act as a consultant for LRSD in its efforts to comply with its obligations under the Revised Plan. 50 Since that time, LRSD has regularly used the services of Dr. Ross, and he is thoroughly familiar with LRSD's compliance efforts under the Revised Plan. I suggested that LRSD continue to use 49See page 148 ofLRSD's March 15, 2002 Final Compliance Report (Doc. No. 3410). 50LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *9. -19- Dr. Ross only because I was concerned that, if LRSD selected another consultant to prepare the program evaluations, Joshua would challenge the new consultant's qualifications, and I would be required to referee another contentious dispute. D. The General Organization and Content of the Eight Program Evaluations During the June 2004 unitary status hearing, the parties introduced into evidence Regulation IL-Rl , which the LRSD Board of Directors approved shortly after I filed the September 2002 Decision. Regulation IL-Rl established the criteria that LRSD developed and agreed to follow in preparing the program evaluations necessary to satisfy its obligations under subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy.51 Section D of the 2004 Compliance Remedy contains obligations that I took directly from Regulation IL-Rl. LRSD voluntarily adopted Regulation IL-Rl to govern the organization and content of the program evaluations it prepared to satisfy  2.7.l and subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy. In section D of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, I incorporated most of the requirements in Regulation IL-RI. 52 In doing so, there were no new obligations imposed on LRSD that went beyond what it had already agreed was required to do. E. Record Keeping Obligations As a way of relieving LRSD of the record keeping obligations in subpart B of the 2002 Compliance Remedy, section E of the 2004 Compliance Remedy required the outside consultants who were selected to prepare the eight  2.7 program evaluations to discharge all of the record keeping obligations that were previously imposed on LRSD. Obviously, nothing in section E imposed any new contractual obligations on LRSD. 51LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *7. 52On December 16, 2004, LRSD replaced Regulation IL-RI with Regulation IL-R. As will be discussed later, Regulation IL-Risa significant improvement over Regulation IL-Rl. -20- F. Obligation to Keep ODM and Joshua Informed Section F required LRSD to provide the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") and Joshua: (I) with the names of the eight  2.7 programs that PRE and Dr. Ross selected for evaluation; and (2) a copy of the comprehensive program assessment process adopted by LRSD's Board of Directors. Numerous sections of the Revised Plan obligated LRSD to keep ODM and Joshua informed of its progress in complying with its desegregation obligations. Section F merely continued that policy, without imposing any new obligations on LRSD. G. The Role of ODM Section H reiterated ODM's role in assisting LRSD to meet its obligations under the 2004 Compliance Remedy. The Eighth Circuit ordered the creation ofODM and charged it with the duty of monitoring and assisting the three Pulaski County school districts to meet their respective - desegregation obligations. There is nothing in section H that imposed any new obligations on LRSD. H. The Role of Joshua In section I, I restated that Joshua was expected \"to fulfill its traditional role of monitoring LRSD's compliance obligations.\" There is nothing in section I that imposed any new obligations. I. Deadlines for Filing Program Evaluations Section J required LRSD to file the four program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year no later than October I, 2005. The four program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year were required to be filed no later than October I, 2006. J. Deadline for Filing Compliance Report Section K gave LRSD until October 15, 2006, to file its Compliance Report \"documenting its compliance with its obligations under 2. 7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy.\" -21- K. No New Obligations In this section, I made it clear that the 2004 Compliance Remedy was not intended to impose any new obligations on LRSD but only to state with greater specificity the obligations I thought LRSD understood it was required to meet in order to satisfy subparts A and B of the 2002 Compliance Remedy. Because of the Eighth Circuit's concerns about the scope of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, I believe this section deserves to be quoted in full: L. This Compliance Remedy is intended to supersede and replace the identical compliance obligations that I imposed on LRSD, albeit with less specificity, in subparts A and B of Section VIl of the September 13 [2002] Decision.53 As I have previously acknowledged, section B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy added a significant new obligation, not found in 2.7.1 or the 2002 Compliance Remedy, which required LRSD to deeply embed the comprehensive program assessment process as a permanent part of its - curriculum and instruction program. However, with that exception, I am satisfied that the remainder of the 2004 Compliance Remedy fairly met LRSD 's request that I specify in greater detail the obligations that LRSD and Joshua both knew and understood to be contained in 2. 7 .1 and subparts A and B of the 2002 Compliance Remedy. III. Findings Of Fact And Conclusions of Law A. Burden of Proof l. In my Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the June 30, 2004 Order,54 I explained why LRSD had the burden of proving its substantial compliance with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 53LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *33 (emphasis added). 54LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *19. -22- 2. I incorporate and adopt my previous analysis of the burden of proof issue inLRSD II as my conclusion of law on that point for purposes of the current unitary status hearing. B. LRSD's Substantial Compliance with Each Section of the 2004 Compliance Remedy 1. Section A: Hire a Team of Professionals to Reinvigorate PRE 1. After I entered the June 2004 Compliance Remedy, LRSD acted in a timely manner to hire a highly qualified director of PRE, as well as three statisticians, two testing assistants, and a full time secretary. Dr. Sharon DeJarnette, the new director of PRE, obtained her masters degree from Columbia University and her Ph.D. from UCLA. The topic of her dissertation was the preparation and use of program assessments to gauge the progress of English language learners. Prior to being hired by LRSD, she had over five years of experience preparing program evaluations of comprehensive school improvement programs as the Research Director for the Galef Institute. 2. During the January 2007 unitary status hearings, I heard testimony from Dr. DeJarnette and three statisticians in PRE, Dr. Ed Williams, Ms. Mareso Robinson, and Mr. Jim Wohlleb. All four of these employees were knowledgeable, competent, and well educated, with considerable training and experience in statistics. All four of these employees were also quite knowledgeable about preparing and using assessments and evaluations to determine the effectiveness of academic programs designed to improve the academic achievement of students. 3. Dr. DeJamette began working as the director of PRE in October of 2004. In December, mandatory downsizing of all of LRSD' s administrative departments caused her to lose her secretary. Additionally, one of her testing coordinators left for a position in the PCSSD. Because these positions remained vacant for several months, Dr. DeJamette complained that it was harder for PRE to perform its work and forced the remaining staff to work longer hours. These positions have been restored now and PRE is back to its original seven person staffing level. -23- 4. Dr. Ed Williams, a statistician who has the longest tenure in PRE, testified that, after one of the testing coordinators left in 2005, he temporarily assumed those duties, in addition to his duties as a statistician. In November 2005, Arthur Oles was hired to fill this test coordinator position. Mr. Oles left the position in September of 2006, and Dr. Williams again assumed those duties until the position was filled on October 26, 2006. According to Dr. Williams, throughout the time PRE was required to discharge obligations under the 2004 Compliance Remedy, it was adequately staffed. I fully credit Dr. Williams's testimony and find that LRSD adequately staffed PRE during the relevant compliance period. The temporary vacancies in PRE were simply the result of normal attrition or downsizing that routinely occurs in organizations the size of LRSD. It was never my intention to require LRSD to meet its obligations in the 2004 Compliance Remedy with \"mathematical precision.\" Rather, consistent with the language in the Revised Plan, I expected LRSD to substantially comply with its obligations. The evidence during the January 2007 unitary status hearings fully supports my finding that LRSD has substantially complied with all of its obligations in section A of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 2. Section B: Act in Good Faith to Devise and Implement a Comprehensive Program Assessment Process l. Shortly after entry of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, LRSD began work to satisfy its obligations under section B. Dr. DeJamette, Dr. Olivine Roberts,55 and Dr. Ross worked together to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. I find all three of these individuals are very knowledgeable in preparing and using program assessments and program evaluations. And all three are qualified to devise and implement a comprehensive program assessment process for LRSD. 55LRSD's Director of Curriculum and Instruction. -24- I I I I I I I I I I 2. Together Drs. DeJamette, Roberts, and Ross devised a comprehensive program assessment process for LRSD, which was set forth in Regulation IL-R.56 Importantly, this regulation, in conjunction with LRSD Policy IL,57 makes it clear that LRSD agrees to prepare all future program evaluations in accordance with the standards developed by the national Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. During the numerous unitary status hearings held since 2002, Dr. Ross and several other witnesses have testified that these are the highest and most rigorous standards for preparing a program evaluation. I find that Regulation IL~R, in conjunction with Policy IL, substantially complies with the obligation in section B that LRSD devise a comprehensive program assessment process. 3. Baker Kurrus and several other members of the LRSD Board testified that, on December 16, 2004, LRSD's Board unanimously approved Regulation IL-R. To date, LRSD's - Board has approved Program Evaluation Agendas annually requiring four programs to be evaluated during the 2004-05, 2005-06, and 2006-07 school years. The first eight of those evaluations were required by section C of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. LRSD's Board voluntarily elected to evaluate four 2. 7 programs during the 2006-07 school year. LRSD Board members testified that LRSD intends to continue this practice for the foreseeable future. 4. During the 2002 unitary status hearing, Dr. Bonnie Lesley58 testified that PRE had done a good job of preparing annual assessments of the 2.7 programs. According to Dr. Lesley, an \"assessment\" was much more informal and \"dynamic\" than a \"program evaluation.\" She also made it clear that 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan required LRSD to prepare both assessments and evaluations on the  2.7 programs. The evidence in the 2002 and 2004 unitary status hearings 56See Joshua's Exhibit 6. 51See Joshua's Exhibit 4. 58LRSD' s Associate Superintendent of Curriculum. -25- established that PRE has generally performed well in preparing the program assessments required by 2.7.1. 5. In section B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, at footnote 39, I explained that the \"comprehensive program assessment process\" required LRSD: (a) to prepare formal evaluations of some of the key  2. 7 programs; and (b) to prepare informal program assessments of other  2. 7 programs. The evidence during the 2004 unitary status hearing established that LRSD failed to satisfy its program evaluation obligations under  2. 7. l -- not its program assessment obligations. Thus, sections B and C of the 2004 Compliance Remedy primarily focused on the things LRSD needed to do to satisfy its program evaluation obligation under  2.7.1. This explains why Regulation IL-R primarily discussed the criteria to be followed in preparing formal program evaluations. However, it also specifically provided that LRSD was obligated to prepare - \"summative\" or formal evaluations; informal assessments; less rigorous formative evaluations; and fast or brief \"snapshots\" of programs. Regulation IL-R noted: \"As rigor and formality diminish along the range ofreview, fewer standards apply.\"59 6. On November 16, 2006, LRSD's Board approved a Resolution which states its intention: (a) to \"continue to assess LRSD programs, particularly those[ 2.7] programs designed to improve and remediate the achievement of African-American students\"; and (b) \"to continue to follow the comprehensive program assessment process approved by the Board on December 16, 2004, even after LRSD is released from federal court supervision. \"60 By approving Regulation IL-R and the November 16, 2006 Resolution, LRSD's Board has acted in good faith to implement the program assessment process required by  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. 59See Joshua's Exhibit 6 at p. I. 60See LRSD's Exhibit 5. -26- 7. Dr. Olivine Roberts, Dr. Ed Williams,61 and Dr. Hugh Hattabaugh62 all testified at length about how LRSD has acted in good faith to implement the comprehensive program assessment process. Dr. Roberts testified that, since the adoption of Regulation IL-R, PRE has made an annual recommendation to the Board that it adopt a program assessment agenda and the Board has always approved that agenda. Using those annual agendas, LRSD has prepared the program evaluations that I required in section C of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, as well as additional voluntary evaluations of other 2.7 programs -- including the Voyager Reading program and the Transition to Advanced Math program. LRSD has also evaluated several  2. 7 initiatives including Avid, an in-school support system for college bound African-American students, and another initiative designed to increase the number of African-American students enrolled in advanced placement courses. Finally, Dr. Roberts testified about how LRSD has performed annual program assessments -- which are more informal and dynamic than program evaluations -- of other  2. 7 programs. 8. Dr. Roberts testified that the program evaluations LRSD was required to prepare in order to satisfy sections Band C of the 2004 Compliance Remedy greatly helped LRSD to identify the  2. 7 programs that were actually working to improve the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. LRSD Board member Baker Kurrus testified that, even though LRSD appealed the June 2004 Decision to the Eighth Circuit, he believed the Compliance Remedy was very helpful and set forth a \"very positive approach\" for LRSD to follow in meeting its obligations under 2. 7 .1. Dr. Katherine Mitchell, the current chair of the Board, also testified that the 2004 Compliance Remedy contained the elements LRSD needed to satisfy in order to meet its obligations under  2. 7. l . As noted earlier, the Eighth Circuit ultimately affirmed the 2004 Compliance Remedy, but 61A PRE statistician. 62LRSD's Deputy Superintendent. -27- it questioned the need for the prescribed remedy and criticized a number of its requirements as going beyond what LRSD agreed to do in 2.7.1. I am pleased that LRSD's top administrators and Board members recognized the soundness of the 2004 Compliance Remedy and why the specific requirements were necessary to address the shortcomings in LRSD's initial attempt to satisfy its obligations under  2.7.1, as those obligations were more generally described in the 2002 Compliance Remedy. 9. Dr. Roberts made it clear that the eight  2.7 program evaluations prepared by Drs. Ross and Catterall63 were beneficial to LRSD in determining the effectiveness of those programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. In addition, she testified that LRSD has agreed to implement all of the changes and modifications to those eight programs that were recommended by Drs. Ross and Catterall. IO. The evaluations of the Pre-K program, the Smart Thrive program, the Reading Recovery program, the Year Round Education program, and the A Plus program demonstrated that all five of those  2.7 programs are improving the academic achievement of African-American students. While the evaluations of the Read 180 program, the 2151 Century program, and the Compass Learning program demonstrated no statistical benefits in improving the academic achievement of African-American students, the evaluators believed that, after making changes in these three programs, they also should show a statistical benefit in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Therefore, LRSD has implemented, or is in the process of implementing, all of the recommended changes and is continuing all eight of those programs during the current school year. Finally, LRSD has performed, or intends to perform, follow-up annual evaluations on these eight programs to determine their effectiveness after all of the recommended changes have been implemented. 63 An expert who, in addition to Dr. Ross, conducted program evaluations. -28- 11. Dr. Roberts testified' that LRSD is in the process of completing a \"Data Warehouse\" where all district, school, and student data will be maintained in a central data storage facility that will be accessible to authorized personnel, such as PRE employees. LRSD has elected to use Business Objects software to develop this data warehouse. Before the 2004 Compliance Remedy, LRSD had used Business Objects software to manage its financial data for a number of years. In 2005, LRSD administrators decided to use this same software to create the Data Warehouse, which will eventually contain all ofLRSD's data -- including district, school, and student data. LRSD administrators chose to use Business Objects software, rather than competing software sold by TetraData. Dr. Roberts saw the competing presentations on the Business Objects software and the TetraData software, and she believes the Business Objects software can access and configure the data needed by PRE to prepare future program assessments and program evaluations. Assuming the - Data Warehouse performs as expected, this will make it much easier for PRE to perform program assessments and gather the data needed to prepare the more rigorous and expensive program evaluations. 12. Dr. Roberts testified that, once the Data Warehouse is complete, PRE should be able to access by computer all of the information needed to prepare assessments and evaluations of 2. 7 programs. As explained by Dr. Roberts, all students who have participated in any of the  2. 7 programs are \"tagged\" in the Data Warehouse so that PRE can pull up a tagged student's name to see how many 2.7 programs he or she has participated in, as well as the standardized test scores and grades for the student both before and after exposure to  2. 7 programs. This will also allow PRE to track the tagged students over time to assess how they are performing after completing each specific 2. 7 program. This should allow PRE to gauge the effectiveness of the 2. 7 programs on a more expedited basis. -29- 13. According to Dr. Roberts, LRSD has used the Data Warehouse to create overall Curriculum Maps that will provide the infrastructure upon which School Portfolios will be constructed at all elementary, middle, and high schools. Dr. Roberts believes these Curriculum Maps are necessary before LRSD can build School Portfolios in the Data Warehouse. Eventually, these School Portfolios will contain all of the relevant performance data for students in a particular school and can be used to determine how well a school has implemented a  2. 7 program, as well as how students are performing, on a school-by-school basis, in those  2.7 programs. LRSD intends to begin implementing School Portfolios at ten schools during the 2007-08 school year and complete the process over the following two school years. 14. Dr. Roberts, Dr. Williams, and Mr. Kurrus all testified at length about why they believed LRSD had \"deeply embedded\" the comprehensive program assessment process in - Regulation IL-R as a permanent part of its curriculum. I have already explained why I should not have used such a subjective standard to determine whether LRSD had met its compliance obligations. Nevertheless, after hearing everything that has been done to make the comprehensive program assessment process a permanent part ofLRSD's curriculum, as explained by Drs. Roberts, Williams, and Mr. Kurrus, I believe it would be hard to find that it has not been \"deeply embedded.\" 15. Dr. Williams testified that, in July 2006, LRSD began \"live training\" with its employees on how to using and accessing data from the Data Warehouse. While there are still some data points that need to be added to the Data Warehouse, Dr. Williams believes it will meet PRE's needs in accessing the data required to prepare program assessments and evaluations. 16. Dr. DeJarnette64 and Jim Wohlleb65 were critical ofLRSD' s decision to use Business Objects software. Both testified that TetraData was superior software that was specifically designed 64Director of PRE. 65 A PRE statistician. -30- to configure data for use in preparing program assessments and program evaluations. They were critical of the amount of training they had received in using the Business Objects software and believed that the Data Warehouse contained too many errors and was still too incomplete to allow PRE to use it as a source for preparing assessments and evaluations of the 2.7 programs. Both testified that, only a few days before the commencement of the January 2007 unitary status hearing, they tried to access the Data Warehouse to get the student data needed to prepare a hypothetical assessment of one of the 2.7 programs. They testified that, because so few of the students in the  2.7 programs have been tagged, they could get only one of the eight data points necessary to prepare the hypothetical assessment. Finally, they testified that they had invited a representative of ODM and Joshua to view the inadequacies of the Business Objects software and the Data Warehouse. Dr. DeJarnette also criticized LRSD' s delay in implementing the School Portfolios and in creating an unreliable Data Warehouse that she may not be able to use to prepare future program assessments and program evaluations. 17. Dr. Hugh Hattabaugh testified that LRSD decided to use Business Objects software because it can be used to access financial and budget data, as well as the student data needed by PRE. According to Dr. Hattabaugh, TetraData cannot be used to access financial and budget data. Additionally, Business Objects software allows LRSD to create a Data Warehouse on its own servers, which allows it to own and control the data.66 18. I fully credit Dr. Hattabaugh's explanation of why LRSD elected to use Business Objects software, rather than TetraData software, to create the Data Warehouse. I find that LRSD acted in good faith when selecting the Business Objects software, which Drs. Roberts, Williams, and 66TetraData requires school districts that use its software to store all of their data on its server in North Carolina. School districts are then charged an annual per student fee to access information from TetraData's server. -31 - - ------- Hattabaugh all believe will fully meet the needs of PRE in preparing program assessments and evaluations. 19. LRSD hired the Janis Group to create the Data Warehouse using the Business Objects software. Mr. Larry Naeyaert , the director of business intelligence for the Janis Group, was assigned the LRSD Data Warehouse project in 2005. For most of2005 and all of 2006, he worked essentially full-time in Little Rock installing the Business Objects software and creating the Data Warehouse. As a former employee of Business Objects, Mr. Naeyaert is thoroughly familiar with the operation of that software. He also is a specialist in setting up business intelligence systems and data bases. 20. Mr. Naeyaert testified in detail about how: (a) student testing, performance, demographics, scheduling, and observational data were entered into the Data Warehouse; (b) - security features have been installed to protect student data; ( c) data have been \"normalized\" to make it available in a common format, which can be matched to a particular student's name; (d) errors have been corrected in the testing and achievement data and a computer program developed to check each night for any input errors that may have occurred earlier in the day; (e) individual student \"data marts\" were created that include all of the data that PRE employees said they needed to prepare program assessments and evaluations; ( f) a student tagging system was developed to track all of the students who have been in any of the 2.7 programs; and (g) five full days of training were provided to all PRE employees.67 21. Mr. Naeyaert testified that LRSD's Data Warehouse is almost complete, although it will be necessary to update it on a continuing basis with new data. The only incomplete data, not yet in the system, are the past school year's achievement data, teacher certification data, and \"perception\" data. Mr. Naeyaert testified that, in July and October of 2006, he performed multiple 67Dr. DeJamette attended only a little over one day of that training. -32- live demonstrations using the Data Warehouse for PRE employees, and the Business Objects software was able to access the requested information from the Data Warehouse. 22. LRSD recalled Mr. Naeyaert, as a rebuttal witness, to controvert the testimony of Dr. DeJarnette and Mr. Wohlleb that, shortly before the January 2007 unitary status hearing, they were unable to access the Data Warehouse and obtain the data they needed for a hypothetical program assessment. Mr. Naeyaert demonstrated how he was able to access the Data Warehouse and obtain all of the data that Dr. DeJarnette and Mr. Wohlleb testified they were unable to access. 23. Dr. DeJarnette, Mr. Wohlleb, Dr. Roberts, Dr. Williams, and Mr. Naeyaert all agreed that LRSD maintains \"data silos\" (individual servers) in numerous departments, which contain all of the information PRE needs to prepare program assessments and evaluations. To access these data silos, PRE sends a \"radar request\" to LRSD's information technology department. Data specialists - then go to the data silos and assemble the requested data. Dr. DeJarnette and Mr. Wohlleb testified it usually takes two days or less for the data specialists to provide PRE with all of the requested data. Thus, even if the Data Warehouse failed to provide PRE with the data it needed, it could still prepare program assessments and evaluations using radar requests to access the data from the decentralized data silos where it is also maintained. The software concerns about perceived problems with the Data Warehouse represent a difference of opinion and preference, but the choice of Business Objects in no way indicates that LRSD has failed to comply with its obligations. 24. Dr. DeJarnette testified that the Data Warehouse was necessary in order to deeply embed Regulation IL-R.68 She also believes that the creation of School Portfolios is required under Regulation IL-R. However, Regulation IL-R, which sets forth LRSD's comprehensive program assessment process, says nothing about LRSD's agreeing to create a \"Data Warehouse,\" nor does 68Joshua's Exhibit 6. -33- it mention \"School Portfolios.\"69 In short, there is nothing in the 2004 Compliance Remedy or Regulation IL-R which obligates LRSD to create a Data Warehouse or School Portfolios or to accomplish those two objectives before the comprehensive program assessment process could be deemed to be \"deeply embedded.\" Clearly, LRSD administrators voluntarily decided to create a Data Warehouse and School Portfolios, in part, to make it easier for PRE to have access to the data it needed to perform assessments and evaluations. While this decision may be a good one, it was not required by 2.7. l, the 2004 Compliance Remedy, nor Regulation IL-R. 25. According to Dr. DeJarnette, on December 1, 2006, LRSD Superintendent Roy Brooks suspended her, and a short time later she was notified that she had been discharged. On January 8, 2007, LRSD' s Board heard Dr. DeJ arnette' s appeal and reinstated her as director of PRE, effective January 10, 2007. According to Dr. DeJamette, Dr. Brooks discharged her because, - contrary to his orders, she informed LRSD Board members in early November 2006 of perceived problems with LRSD's compliance efforts. Dr. Brooks and Dr. Hattabaugh testified that Dr. DeJarnette was discharged because she had become openly defiant to her superiors and did not go through the proper chain-of-command when she communicated directly with LRSD's Board members. Both denied that she was discharged because she believed LRSD had not met its obligations under the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 26. The facts surrounding Dr. DeJarnette's discharge and reinstatement are irrelevant to whether LRSD has substantially complied with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Nevertheless, because Dr. DeJamette 's discharge and reinstatement may be raised on appeal, I will review briefly the relevant facts, which are essentially undisputed: 69The only time that phrase is even mentioned is on page 2, under one of the headings on a checklist that reads \"Formative Evaluation Process (School Portfolios).\" -34- (a) By December of 2004, a few months after she was hired, Dr. DeJamette had a dispute with her direct supervisor, Dr. Roberts, about a district-wide downsizing that caused her to believe she might lose one of her test administrators and her secretary. Following this dispute, Dr. DeJamette began complaining to Dr. Brooks about how Dr. Roberts was impeding the work of PRE. Dr. DeJarnette asked Dr. Brooks to allow her to report directly to him, but he refused. (b) During 2005 and 2006, Dr. DeJamette began to meet with Joy Springer, Joshua's primary monitor, without LRSD's attorney present. She also began sharing with Ms. Springer draft documents ofLRSD' s compliance efforts, even though LRSD' s attorney had explicitly directed her not to do this. (c) In August of 2006, PRE sent LRSD's attorney the final draft of the final quarterly update, which was dated September 1, 2006. 70 In this update, Dr. DeJarnette raised what she thought were a number of problems with LRSD's efforts to comply with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. All of the \"compliance problems\" raised by Dr. DeJamette involve obligations that go beyond what was required under  2.7.1 and the 2004 Compliance Remedy. (d) LRSD's attorney deleted almost all of Dr. DeJarnette's remarks in section D of the September 1, 2006 update, which criticized LRSD's efforts to comply primarily with the \"deeply embedded\" obligation in section B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy.71 This upset Dr. DeJarnette, who believed that LRSD's attorney was trying to keep the Board in the dark about potential problems with LRSD's compliance efforts. 10See Joshua's Exhibit 24. 11See LRSD's Exhibit 2H. -35- (e) Sometime in October of 2006, one or more Board members found out about LRSD' s attorney deleting a portion of PRE's draft of the September I, 2006 quarterly update and asked Dr. Roberts to have Dr. DeJarnette advise the Board of what happened. Dr. DeJarnette sent each Board member a letter dated November 3, 2006, along with a document captioned \"PRE Compliance History 2004-2006.\"72 (f) On December 1, 2006, Dr. Brooks suspended Dr. DeJarnette and, a short time later, fired her. On January 9, 2006, the Board heard Dr. DeJarnette's appeal and voted 4-3 to reverse Dr. Brooks's decision and to reinstate Dr. DeJarnette. 27. I fully credit Dr. Roberts's testimony detailing the long list of things LRSD did to implement and embed the comprehensive program assessment process contained in Regulation IL-R. I credit the testimony of Dr. Roberts, Dr. Williams, and Mr. Naeyaert on the current status of the - Data Warehouse and School Portfolios, and the suitability of Business Objects software as a platform for accessing the information in the Data Warehouse. I find that much of Dr. DeJarnette's and Mr. Wohlleb's criticism of the Data Warehouse, School Portfolios, and the Business Objects software lacks objectivity. 28. I find that LRSD' s administrators have substantially complied with their obligations m section B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy by implementing a comprehensive program assessment process as a permanent part ofLRSD' s curriculum. I further fmd that, in implementing the comprehensive program assessment process, LRSD has acted in good faith. 29. LRSD has gone the extra mile to ensure that its program assessment process is and will continue to be a permanent part of its curriculum. I would be hard pressed not to conclude that LRSD has now \"deeply embedded\" that process as a permanent part of its curriculum, although this standard is now abandoned. 72See Joshua's Exhibit 31. -36- - 3. Section C: Prepare Four Evaluations of Key  2. 7 Programs During Each of the Next Two Academic Years (2004-05 and 2005-06) 1. To comply with section C of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, LRSD hired Dr. Ross and Dr. James S. Catterall. Dr. Ross prepared evaluations of six key 2.7 programs: (1) Reading Recovery;73 (2) Compass Learning;74 (3) Smart/Thrive;75 (4) 2l51 Century Community Learning Centers;76 (5) Read 180;77 and (6) Pre-K Literacy.78 Dr. Catterall, another highly qualified consultant, prepared evaluations on two key  2. 7 programs: ( 1) Year Round Education; 79 and (2) A+ Education. 80 2. For the 2004-05 school year, Drs. Ross and Catterall prepared evaluations ofReading Recovery, Compass Learning, Smart/Thrive, and Year Round Education. LRSD timely filed these four evaluations with the Court on February 6, 2006.81 3. For the 2005-06 school year, Drs. Ross and Catterall prepared evaluations of 2151 Century Community Learning Centers, A+ Education, Read 180, and Pre-K Literacy. The first three evaluations were filed on November 17, 2006, and the last evaluation was filed on December 15, 73LRSD Exhibit IA. 74LRSD Exhibit lB. 75LRSD Exhibit IC. 76LRSD Exhibit IE. 77LRSD Exhibit lG. 78LRSD Exhibit 1 H. 79LRSD Exhibit ID. 80LRSD Exhibit IF. 81See Doc. No. 3985. -37- 2006. All four program evaluations were filed within the time limit specified in section J of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, as extended by my Order dated August 1, 2006.82 4. LRSD used Dr. Ross to assist in identifying the eight key 2.7 programs that were to be evaluated. Consistent with section F of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, LRSD provided timely written notice to the ODM and Joshua of the names of the eight key programs selected for evaluation. ODM and Joshua agreed to the eight key  2. 7 programs that were eventually selected for evaluation. 5. In his evidentiary deposition, 83 Dr. Ross testified that the six evaluations he prepared met all of the requirements contained in the 2004 Compliance Remedy. He also testified that all six of these evaluations were \"good evaluations,\" in that they accurately answered the research questions and reached statistically valid conclusions which demonstrated four of the programs84 - were working to improve the academic achievement of African-American students, and two of the programs85 did not appear to be working. However, Dr. Ross testified that, after LRSD implemented recommended changes, these two programs should show a statistically significant benefit in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Dr. Ross recommended that LRSD continue to offer all six of these 2.7 programs. Since Dr. Ross's recommendation, LRSD has implemented the recommended changes in those two programs and plans to perform a follow-up evaluation to determine if, after the changes, the programs are now working. After reading all eight of these step 2 evaluations, I find that they comply, in all respects, with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 82Doc. No. 4035. 83Court's Exhibit A. 84Reading Recovery, Smartffhrive, Read 180, and Pre-K Literacy. 85Compass Learning and 21st Century Learning Centers. -38- 6. Dr. Ross testified that PRE provided him with all of the data he needed to prepare these six evaluations of 2.7 programs. While Dr. Ross identified several discrete problems with some of the data, he did not assert that these problems affected the validity or utility of the evaluations. He also made it clear that \"School Portfolios\" were not necessary in order to access the data required to prepare accurate and reliable program evaluations. 7. In his deposition, 86 Dr. Catterall testified that PRE provided him with all of the data he needed to prepare evaluations of the Year Round Education program and the A+ Education program. He stated that the data he received from LRSD was better than the data he received from most school districts. Dr. Catterall also indicated that the evaluations he prepared of these two  2. 7 programs complied with all of the requirements of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Finally, Dr. Catterall testified that School Portfolios were not needed in order to prepare program - evaluations. 8. In her evidentiary deposition,87 Dr. Victoria Bernhardt, an outside consultant with expertise in using TetraData to construct Data Warehouses and School Portfolios for school districts, also confirmed that Data Warehouses and School Portfolios were not necessary in order to prepare a program evaluation. Dr. Bernhardt believed TetraData software was easier to use than Business Objects software, and TetraData software was specifically developed to create Data Warehouses for school districts, unlike Business Objects software. Finally, Dr. Bernhardt acknowledged that she owns stock options in TetraData. 9. During the January 2007 unitary status hearings, Joshua offered little testimony challenging whether these eight evaluations of key  2. 7 programs satisfied the requirements in section C of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Dr. DeJarnette testified that one of the high school 86Court's Exhibit B. 87Court's Exhibit C. -39- principals, who had students participating in the 21 st Century Community Leaming Centers program, administered 120 end-of-course algebra exams but failed to have 40% of the exams graded. Dr. DeJarnette believed this may have affected the accuracy of Dr. Ross's evaluation of that program. She also testified that Dr. Ross did not receive all of the data from all of the schools participating in the Read 180 program because some of the servers containing that test score data were dismantled before that data could be given to Dr. Ross. She believed this loss of data may have limited the use of the Read 180 evaluation. In criticizing the accuracy of a small part of the data used in two of the program evaluations, Dr. DeJarnette makes too much of a small glitch. Her testimony falls well short of establishing any substantial problems with the data used in those evaluations sufficient to create a question concerning whether LRSD complied with the requirements in section C of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. - 10. In Joshua's November 15, 2006 Objections to LRSD' s Compliance Report, 88 the only challenge it makes to any of the eight program evaluations is in paragraph 5, which contains the following cryptic statement: \"[T]he evaluations of the Read 180 program and the 21 st Century Community Leaming Centers program contain insufficient descriptions of the program being evaluated to meet LRSD's own standards and the Court's Order.\"89 To the extent that Joshua was serious about challenging sufficiency of how these two programs were described, they failed to present any evidence to support this argument during the January 2007 unitary status hearing. Accordingly, I find that LRSD has substantially complied with all of its obligations under section C of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 88Doc. No. 4058. 89Jd. -40- 4. Section D: Content and Organization of the Eight Evaluations of Key  2.7 Programs 1. Each of the eight evaluations was designed to answer the following research questions: \"Has the  2. 7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district?\" And each of these evaluations is organized and written in a way that makes the information readily understandable to a lay person such as I. 2. Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall both testified that PRE provided them with all of the support and assistance they needed to prepare the eight evaluations. Dr. DeJamette made it clear in the quarterly updates and in her testimony in the January 2007 unitary status hearing that she and the PRE department supervised the preparation of the eight evaluations and worked closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall to provide them with the data and other assistance they needed. Dr. Williams also testified that PRE fulfilled its duties in overseeing the preparation of these eight evaluations and working closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall to provide the support and assistance they requested. 3. I find that LRSD has substantially complied with all of the obligations in section D of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 5. Section E: Record Keeping Obligation 1. After reviewing the eight step 2 evaluations, I find that Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall performed all of the record keeping obligations required in section E of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. In addition, during the January 2007 unitary status hearing, Joshua did not offer any arguments or testimony directed at challenging the obligations imposed under this section of the remedy. 2. LRSD has substantially complied with all of the obligations in section E of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. -41- 6. Section F: Notice Obligations l. As I have previously stated, PRE timely provided ODM and Joshua with written notice of the eight key 2.7 programs that PRE and Dr. Ross identified for program evaluations. PRE also provided ODM and Joshua with a fmal draft of the comprehensive program assessment process more than thirty days before it was presented for approval to the LRSD Board. LRSD's Board approved the comprehensive program assessment process set forth in Regulation IL-R on December 16, 2004, well before the December 31, 2004 deadline. Finally, during the January 2007 unitary status hearing, Joshua did not offer any evidence challenging LRSD's compliance with any of the obligations in this section of the remedy. 2. LRSD has substantially complied with all of the obligations in section G of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 7. Section G: Quarterly Updates l. LRSD timely filed the eight quarterly updates required by this section of the remedy. LRSD also provided ODM and Joshua with copies of these quarterly updates when each update was filed. 2. The only contested aspect ofLRSD's preparation of the quarterly updates concerns Joshua's assertion that LRSD's counsel improperly deleted information from section B of the final draft of the September 1, 2006 update that Dr. DeJarnette believed should have been included. As previously explained, in section B of the fmal draft of the September 1, 2006 update, Dr. DeJarnette raised compliance concerns involving: ( a) the Data Warehouse and School Portfolios; (b) errors and inaccuracies in some of the data contained in the Data Warehouse; and (c) the delay in completing both of those projects, which still had work that remained to be done, as of September 1, 2006. 90 Dr. DeJarnette believed the completion of both the Data Warehouse and School Portfolios were a 90See Joshua's Exhibit 24. -42- necessary and essential part of\"deeply embedding\" the comprehensive program assessment process as a permanent part ofLRSD' s curriculum. She testified that, by editing out her criticism ofLRSD' s compliance efforts in section B of the September 1, 2006 quarterly update, LRSD's attorney was preventing LRSD's Board and the Court from receiving crucial information. 3. As I have previously explained, nothing in the 2004 Compliance Remedy obligated LRSD to install a Data Warehouse or to create School Portfolios. Similarly, Regulation IL-R does not mention the Data Warehouse or School Portfolios. Finally, Dr. Ross and Dr. Barnhardt both testified that a school district could embed a comprehensive program assessment process, as a permanent part of its curriculum, without creating a Data Warehouse or School Portfolios. 4. The information LRSD's attorney deleted from Dr. DeJarnette's final draft of the September I, 2006 Quarterly Update has no bearing on the question of whether LRSD has - substantially complied with the obligations contained in section B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 5. I find that LRSD has substantially complied with all of the obligations in section G of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 8. Section H: The ODM I. During the 2007 unitary status hearing, Joshua called Gene Jones, one of the ODM monitors, to offer testimony regarding LRSD' s alleged noncompliance. While Mr. Jones conceded that the term \"deeply embedded\" has never been defined, and that he was not sure what that term meant, he nevertheless, stated that he did not believe that LRSD had \"deeply embedded\" the comprehensive program assessment process as a permanent part of its curriculum. Be that as it may, \"deeply embedded\" is no longer required. 2. Mr. Jones also testified that, at Dr. DeJarnette's request, he was in PRE's office several days before the commencement of the January 2007 unitary status hearing to observe alleged failure of the Data Warehouse (to provide seven of the eight points of data she needed to prepare her -43- I I I I I I I I I I I hypothetical program). Mr. Jones did not indicate that he had taken an independent look at section B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy to determine whether it required LRSD to create a Data Warehouse and School Portfolios. (It does not.) 9. Section I: Joshua's Monitoring Obligations l. The 2004 Compliance Remedy reads: I want to be very clear on this point- if compliance problems arise, the parties must immediately bring them to my attention so that I can resolve them while there is still time for LRSD to make \"mid-course corrections.\"91 2. On June 26, 2006, the Eighth Circuit entered its decision affinning the June 2004 Compliance Remedy.92 The Court agreed that \"Joshua had not waived its right to challenge either LRSD's interpretation of the 2002 Remedy or LRSD's claim that it had substantially complied with the requirements of that remedy.\"93 However, the Court went on to say: Nevertheless, in light of its failure to call to the district court's attention its disagreement with LRSD's interpretation of the 2002 order, it would ill behoove Joshua to raise any further technical complaints about LRSD' s efforts to comply with the 2002 order.94 3. Two days after the Eighth Circuit issued its June 26, 2006 decision Joshua filed an affidavit by Ms. Joy Springer. 4. Ms. Springer is a long-time paralegal for Joshua's counsel. She has considerable experience and has developed considerable expertise in the monitoring process. 92LRSD v. NLRSD, et al., 451 F.3d 528 (8th Cir. 2006). 93/d. at 539. -44-  5. During the January 2007 unitary status hearing, Ms. Springer testified, in a six-page affidavit dated June 28, 2006,95 that she had brought to the attention ofLRSD's Board her concerns about LRSD' s compliance with its obligations under the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Mr. Kurrus and several other LRSD Board members testified that this was their first notice that Joshua had any concerns about LRSD's compliance efforts. This was less than 120 days before the deadline for LRSD to file its Final Compliance Report and twenty-one months into LRSD's compliance efforts. On August 17, 2006, Ms. Springer wrote a letter to LRSD' s attorney96 detailing additional concerns that she had about LRSD's compliance efforts. 6. Most of the alleged compliance problems noted by Ms. Springer in her affidavit arose during the 2005 school year. The affidavit's list of problems include: inadequate professional development in the area of program assessments and evaluations; a delay in the use of questionnaires - as part of the program assessment process; delays in the completion of the Data Warehouse; Drs. Brooks and Roberts \"de-emphasiz[ing] the importance of PRE and the compliance remedy,\" by seldom, if ever, attending \"PRE meetings\" or \"evaluation team meetings,\" and reducing or failing to fill positions in PRE; and LRSD's alleged failure to meet its obligation of\"embedding program assessments\" into its curriculum and instruction program. 7. I would be hard pressed to find that Joshua's objections were timely filed in view of the Eighth Circuit language, quoted above, and in view of the language in the 2004 Compliance Remedy.97 Be that as it may, most compliance issues raised in the affidavit deal with matters that are clearly not required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy (\"deeply embedding\" is no longer required). My previous findings make it clear that I reject Ms. Springer's view of the alleged 95Joshua's Exhibit 18. 96Joshua's Exhibit 19. 91See LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *34. -45-  compliance problems which are covered by the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Accordingly, I do not credit them in determining whether LRSD is in compliance. 10. Section J: Deadline for LRSD to File Program Evaluations I. As previously explained, LRSD filed the eight evaluations of key  2. 7 programs within the times specified in section K, as extended by my later orders, and has substantially complied with its obligations under section J. 11. Section K: Deadline for LRSD to File Final Compliance Report I. LRSD filed its Final Compliance Report98 on October 16, 2006. Joshua filed objections99 on November 15, 2006. 2. Thus, I find that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations under section K. C. Miscellaneous: The Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull \u0026amp; Burrow (\"QGTB\") Report I. On October 3, 2006, Dr. DeJarnette filed a grievance with the LRSD Human Resources Department alleging, among other things, that certain LRSD senior administrators had created a hostile work environment by directing her to withhold information from the LRSD Board, ODM, and Joshua, and by advising her that, if she did not withhold this information, she would be discharged. 2. On November 6, 2006, LRSD retained the law firm of QGTB to conduct an independent investigation of the facts surrounding Dr. DeJamette's grievance and her allegations that she was ordered to withhold certain information concerning LRSD's efforts to comply with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. On November 9, 2006, LRSD's Board approved hiring QGTB and directed QGTB to continue its investigation and prepare a written report. On November 21 , 2006, 98Doc. No. 4050. 99Doc. No. 4058. -46- QGTB presented LRSD's Board with a report entitled \"Independent Investigation Report to the Board of Directors ofLRSD\" (the \"QGTB Report\"). 3. During the January 2007 unitary status hearing, LRSD introduced the QGTB Report100 into evidence for the limited purpose of establishing LRSD's good faith in responding to Dr. DeJamette's grievance alleging a hostile work environment. 4. As I have previously explained, I find Dr. DeJamette's discharge and later reinstatement as Director of PRE to be a personnel issue that has nothing to do with whether LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations under the 2004 Compliance Remedy. I further find that none of the facts contained in the QGTB Report are admissible in this case to prove the truth of any of the matters asserted in that document. D. 1. Impact of September 2006 School Board Elections From the time LRSD entered the Revised Plan in 1998 until the September 2006 school board elections, Caucasians have held the majority of seats on LRSD' s Board. This changed after the September elections, and LRSD' s Board is now composed of four African-Americans and three Caucasians. 2. During the January 2007 unitary status hearing, the three Caucasian Board members, Mr. Kurrus, Mr. Larry Berkley, and Ms. Melanie Fox, all testified that LRSD had deeply embedded the comprehensive program assessment process and substantially complied with all of the other obligations in the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 3. The African-American Board members are Chairperson Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Mr. Robert Daughtery, Mr. Charles Armstrong, and Ms. Diane Curry. They testified that they either did not believe, or did not have enough information to know if, LRSD had \"deeply embedded\" the comprehensive program assessment process as a permanent part of its curriculum. They also 100LRSD Exhibit 6. -47- expressed concerns about whether LRSD had substantially complied with its other obligations under the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Some of the African-American Board members also expressed reservations about whether it was in LRSD's best interest to be declared unitary because LRSD could lose millions of dollars of state funding that it now receives under the settlement agreement with the State of Arkansas. 4. Because the \"deeply embedded\" language has been struck as too subjective, the opinions of the Board members on the question of whether LRSD has \"deeply embedded\" the comprehensive program assessment process is not relevant. I do not find the concerns expressed by some Board members regarding the effect of LRSD's substantial compliance with the 2004 Compliance Remedy on other obligations to be at issue now. It is understandable that Board members would be concerned over a potential loss of state funding, but that is not, and cannot be, an appropriate consideration in determining whether the District is unitary. I do not fault the new board members for their doubts. It seems to me that these doubts reflect a heathy skepticism, rather than negative attitudes. This is to be expected of new members while they are getting their sea legs. 5. All seven Board members agreed that improving the academic achievement of African-American students is of great importance, and that the District will need to continue to implement, assess, and evaluate 2. 7 programs for the foreseeable future. They support Regulation IL-Rand believe that it must be made a permanent part ofLRSD's curriculum. They believe PRE plays a crucial role in overseeing the implementation, assessment, and evaluation of 2. 7 programs. By finding common ground on these four important priorities, I am optimistic that the Board will continue to ensure that the comprehensive program assessment process remains a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum for as long as it takes to improve the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. -48- IV. Conclusion Nine years after executing the March 15, 1998 Revised Plan, LRSD finally has achieved unitary status by substantially complying with all of the obligations contained in that document. This means that LRSD is no longer under any supervision and monitoring obligations from me, ODM, or Joshua. LRSD's Board can now operate the district as it sees fit; answerable to no one except LRSD's students and patrons and the voters who elected them to office. While the road has been long and at times frustrating -- for LRSD and for me -- I want to express my heartfelt best wishes as LRSD begins to operate, as our Founders intended, under control of the citizens of the City of Little Rock. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that LRSD be and hereby is declared completely unitary in all aspects of its operations. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that LRSD is released from all further supervision and monitoring from the Court, ODM, and Joshua based upon its having substantially complied with all of its obligations under the Revised Plan, the September 2002 Compliance Remedy, and the June 2004 Compliance Remedy. DATED this 23d day of February, 2007. /s/ Wm. R.Wilson Jr. UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE -49- 03/24/2007 10:26 5016045237 USDC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ~ICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTlE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3326 (501) 804-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 March 24, 1007 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72024 Re: LRSDv. PCSSD, eta/, 4:82-CV-00866 Joshua's Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal Dear Mr. Walker: What is opposing counsel's position? Please advise. P.S. Please refer to Local Rul 6.2(b). Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: Other Counsel of Reco:rd Cordially, ts/ wm. R.Wilson,Jr, PAGE 02/02 03/24/2007 10:26 5016045237 USDC TO: DATE: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones John Walker Robert Pressman Scott Richardson ODM Mark Burnette .., . .) ~ l '/ . .;;, _;;.. Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Number: 501-604 5149 376-2147 688-8807 375-1027 374-4187 781-862-1955 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 There are -,_,pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: Office of Judge Wm U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 . Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141 PAGE 01/02 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2007 OFRCtOF DEr!:~~U\\i\"i':.,.. :.;r:\"l'!'Off!NG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is Joshua Intervenors' Motion for Additional Time in which to File Notice of Appeal (Doc. No. 4105). Joshua is given to and including 12:00 noon, Thursday, April 5, 2007 within which to file a notice of appeal. This should give the intervenors ample time to weigh the relevant considerations. IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of March, 2007. /s/ Wm. R. Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE MIME-Version:1 . 0 From:ecf_ support@ared.uscourts . gov To : ared_ecf@localhost . localdomain a essage-Id:\u0026lt;872025@ared . uscourts . gov\u0026gt; W ee : Subject :Activity in Case 4:82- cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School , et al v . Pulaski Cty School , et al Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Content-Type : text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once wi thout charge . To avoid later charges , download a copy of each document during this first viewing . U. S . District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 3/26/2007 11 : 11 AM CDT and filed on 3/26/2007 Case Name : Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School , et al Case Number : 4 : 82-cv-866 http : / /ecf . ared . uscourts.gov/ cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?26052 Filer ~ WARNING : CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number : 4107 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document : http : //ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_ case_doc?4107 , 26052 ,, MAGIC ,,, 2005624 Docket Text : ORDER granting ( 4105] Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal ; Joshua is given to a nd including 12 : 00 noon , Thursday , April 5 , 2007 within which to file a notice of appeal . Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr . on 3/26/07. (mkf) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: A:layton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi . com - hilip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbml aw . net , nmo l er@kbmlaw.net Christopher J. He l ler heller@fec . net , brendak@fec . net , tmiller@fec . net M. Samuel Jones , III (Terminated) sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj . com, kate.jones@jlj . com, linda .calloway@jlj . com \\ John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol. com, jspringer@gabrielmail . com, lorap72297@aol . com  Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi . com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net , yeldnef@yahoo . com Scott Paris Richardson scott.richardsori@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag .gov, patsy . dooley@arkansasag . gov 4:82-cv- 866 Notice has been delivered by other means t o : . Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc . - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 . Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Atto rney General ' s Office Catlett- Pr i en Tower Building 323 Cente r Street Sui te 200 - Little Roc k, AR 72201 - 2610 James M. Llewell yn , Jr Thomps on \u0026amp; Llewe ll y n , P . A. Post Office Box 818 cort Smith, AR 72902-08 18 Office of Desegregation Moni to r One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 ~ ttle Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith , AR 72902-0818 The following ~ocument(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description : Main Document Original filename : n/a Electronic document Stamp : [STAMP dcecfStamp_ ID=l095794525 [Date=3/26/2007) [FileNumber=872024-0) [317a0cbedac4ald0bf5d26ac32314670103d8elca6e57249a36ac7a8b50b0ld7284fcl2f00fbbfe llc162 4b02853a0572ef935adbbc364371afbcf496f237239)) \\ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRWIJTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2007 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS  '\"INTERVENORS  INTERVENORS Based on the matters set forth in Joshua lntervenors' Motion for Reconsideration for Extension of Time Up to and Including 30 Days to File Notice of Appeal (Doc. No. 4109), Joshua's time is again extended to 12:00 noon, Monday, April 9, 2007 within which to file a notice of appeal. Mr. Walker and Mr. Pressman have had extensive experience in this type oflitigation and in,!his particular case. While the Order of February 23, 2007 1 is longer than the usual order entered by this Court, it is not, I believe, all that complicated for lawyers who have been involved in the litigation for such a len~h of time -- and the filing of a notice of appeal is a simple matter. IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of March, 2007. Isl Wm. R. Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 'Doc. No. 4103. MIME-Version:1 . 0 From : ecf_ support@ared . uscourts.gov To:ared_ ecf@localhost . localdomain Message-Id : \u0026lt;872438@ared . uscourts . gov\u0026gt; Alec: .,ubject:Activity in Case 4 : 82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School , et al v . Pulaski Cty School , et al Order on Motion for Reconsiderati on Content-Type: text / plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** There is no charge for viewing opinions . ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges , down l oad a copy of each document during this first viewing.U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 3 / 26 / 2007 3 : 03 PM CDT and filed on 3/26/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School , et al v . Pulaski Cty School , et al Case Number : 4 : 82-cv-866 http://ecf . ared.uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?26052 Filer : WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01 / 26/1998 Document Number : 4110 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the docume nt : http://ecf . ared . uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/ show_ case_ doc?4l10 , 26052,,MAGIC,,, 2005632 Docket Text : ORDER granting [4109) Motion for Reconsideration ; Joshua ' s time is again extended to 12 : 00 noon , Monday , April 9 , 2007 within which to file a notice of appeal . Signed by Judge Wi lliam R. Wilson Jr . on 3 / 26/07 . (mkf) 4 : 82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: ~ layton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi . com Wphili p E. Kap l an pkaplan @kbml a w. net , nmoler@kbmlaw .net Christopher J. Heller heller@fec . net , brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samue l Jones , III (Terminated) sjones@mwsgw . com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj . com, kate . jones@jlj. com, linda . calloway@jlj . com \\ John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol . com, j springer@gabrielmail . com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Bu rnette mburnette@mbbwi . com John Cl ayburn Fendley , Jr c l ayfendley@comcast.net , yeldnef@yahoo.com ~ Scott Paris Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agc ivi l@arkansasag.gov , patsy . dooley@arkan sasag .gov 4 : 82-cv- 866 Notice has been delivered by other means to :Norman J . Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York , NY 10013 ~imothy Ge rard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General ' s Offi ce Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 - Little Rock, AR 72201 -2 610 J ames M. Llewe l lyn, Jr Thomps on \u0026amp; Llewe l l yn , P . A. Post Office Box 818 Fo r t Smith , AR 72902 -08 18 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 - ittle Rock , AR 72201 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P . A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description : Main Document Original filename : n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=3/26/2007] [FileNumber=872437-0] [b9a0174044707lc635647c060ac8605869149660906b84412eddll8e7761841722b72d3ccd8fc78 46lef08d8ac06f5ae4e4c3825b0b0189celdecaee8a00bede]] MIME-Version : 1 . 0 R~ From : ecf_support@ared.uscourts . gov ,;;CE/ll~D To:ared_ecf@localhost.localdomain Ve;, - ~~age-Id:\u0026lt;872743@ared.uscourts .gov\u0026gt; /.f. Subject :Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School,~~ ~.J!JO(}iulaski Cty School, et al Notice of Docket Correction OF~  Content-Type : text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS** JJESEOR~J\"-B;, the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges , downloact~~JN4ttON/ftf..,~ach document during this first viewing.U.S . District Court '~ Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 3/27/2007 8 : 10 AM CDT and filed on 3/27/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School , et al v . Pulaski Cty School , et al Case Number: 4 : 82-cv-866 http://ecf . ared . uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?26052 Filer : WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4112 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document: http : / / ecf . ared.uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/show_ case_ doc?4ll2,26052,,MAGIC,, , 2005637 Docket Text : NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION re : [4109] MOTION for Reconsideration . CORRECTION : The original document was submitted in error (illegible document format); the correct document was added to docket entry [4109] , based on the attached correspondence. (thd) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to : A:1ayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi . com W hilip E . Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net , nmoler@kbmlaw . net Christophe r J. Heller heller@fec.net , brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec .net M. Samue l J ones , III (Terminated) sj o nes@mwsgw . com, aoverton@mwsgw . com Stephen W. J ones sjones@jlj . com, kat e . jones@jlj . com, linda . calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol. com, jspringer@gabrielmail . com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi . com John Cla y burn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@c omcast.net , yeldnef@yahoo . com Sc o t t Par is Richardson scott . richards o~\" @arkansasag . gov , agcivil@arkansasag.gov, patsy.dool ey@arkansasag.gov 4: 8 2-cv -8 66 Notice has been delivered by other means t o : Norman J . Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educationa l Fund, Inc . - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York , NY 10013 Ti mot hy Gerard Gauger Ark a nsa s At torney Genera l ' s Of fi ce Ca tlett -P rien Tower Bui lding 323 Center St reet Suite 200 - Little Roc k, AR 72201 -2 610 J ames M. Ll ewel l yn, J r Thomps on \u0026amp; Llewel l yn , P.A. Post Cffi~e Box 818 f o r t Smitb , AR 7 2902-08 18 Of fi~~ 0E De s e g r ega tion Mo ni to r One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 - ttle Rock, AR 72201 William P . Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A . Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith , AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description: Main Document Original filename : n/a Electronic document Stamp : [STAMP dcecfStamp_ ID=1095794525 [Date=3/27/2007] [FileNumber=872742-0] [a2ff16c6503bf6f37ce6d846e18b46a2a71bb785564ba03f3defe925a6eebd7a57f7854b71d37dc 853a64aaf31c7af693c73a93le5del77b6a9a0780acf18605]]     Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; 03/26/2007 05:55 PM To \u0026lt;clerksoffice@ared.uscourts.gov\u0026gt; cc \u0026lt;cblackstock@mbbwi.com\u0026gt;, \"Philip Kaplan\" \u0026lt;pkaplan@kbmlaw.net\u0026gt;, \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;, \u0026lt;sjones@mwsgw.com\u0026gt;, \u0026lt;sjones@jlj.com\u0026gt;, bee Subject Little Rock School Distirct v. Pulaski County Special School District.et al. At Mr. Walker's request, I am resending the attached motion per your request. Looks like we are having problem with our Adobe. Thank you for your patience and cooperation. Joy Springer ., ' f:hif For John W. Walker Motion for Reconsideration.pdf ---------- ----- --------- ----~---------    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"auu_auc-167_auc-167-0075-1","title":"Albany Civil Rights Movement Museum With Gloria Gayles Interview, March 2007","collection_id":"auu_auc-167","collection_title":"The Spelman Independent Scholars Oral History Project","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Georgia, Dougherty County, Albany, 31.57851, -84.15574"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2007-01-23"],"dcterms_description":["Joy Baily, Dr. Babafemi O. Elufiede, Dr. Gloria Wade Gayles, and Daaiyah Salaam are interviewed by Jaxon Riley regarding the expansion of the Civil Rights Museum in Albany, Georgia. Each give their take on the importance of oral histories. Student involvement and the partnership between Albany State University and Spelman College are discussed as well. The Reverend Charles Sherrod and the freedom singer Rutha Harris sing for an audience of students and professors in between interviews."],"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Spelman Independent Scholars Oral History Project||http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12322/fa:167"],"dcterms_subject":["African American women","Oral history","African Americans--Civil rights"],"dcterms_title":["Albany Civil Rights Movement Museum With Gloria Gayles Interview, March 2007"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Spelman College"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12322/auc.167:0075_1"],"dcterms_temporal":["2010/2019"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["moving images"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"suc_tomcrosbystr_89","title":"Agnes Burgess oral history interview, 2007 January 18","collection_id":"suc_tomcrosbystr","collection_title":"Tom Crosby’s Rosenwald School Oral History Collection, 2006-2011","dcterms_contributor":["Crosby, Tom, 1940-","South Caroliniana Library. Office of Oral History"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, South Carolina, Lexington County, 33.90233, -81.27219","United States, South Carolina, Orangeburg County, Elloree, Elloree School, 33.52655, -80.58814","United States, South Carolina, Orangeburg County, Orangeburg, 33.49182, -80.85565","United States, South Carolina, Richland County, Columbia, 34.00071, -81.03481"],"dcterms_creator":["Burgess, Agnes, 1914-2012,"],"dc_date":["2007-01-18"],"dcterms_description":["In this oral history interview, Agnes Hildebrand Wilson Burgess discusses her educational experiences at Claflin and Elloree elementary schools through her graduate work at Temple University and The Sorbonne, her outstanding achievements as an educator, and her travels to France and Kenya. Dr. Burgess was the first African-American teacher to receive the South Carolina Teacher of the Year Award. Agnes Hildebrand Wilson Burgess, an educator, was born in 1914 in Chapin, South Carolina, to Rev. Benjamin Franklin Hildebrand Sr. and Agnes Brogdon. Twice widowed, Dr. Burgess passed away October 6, 2012. Tom Crosby interviewed Agnes Burgess at her home on January 18, 2007. Interview covers Dr. Burgess' education at Claflin University (grades 1-7) and the Elloree School in the early 1920s, Allen University (high school) from 1928 to 1931, as well as at Allen University from 1932 onward."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Columbia, S.C. : University of South Carolina. South Caroliniana Library"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Tom Crosby oral history collection, 2006-2011","Burgess, Agnes 18Jan2007 CROS 004"],"dcterms_subject":["Women college students--South Carolina","African American teachers--South Carolina","African Americans--Social life and customs--20th century","African American schools--South Carolina--Orangeburg County--History--20th century","African Americans--Education--South Carolina--History--20th century","African Americans--South Carolina--Interviews","Claflin University--Alumni and alumnae--Interviews","Allen University--Alumni and alumnae--Interviews"],"dcterms_title":["Agnes Burgess oral history interview, 2007 January 18"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["South Caroliniana Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digital.tcl.sc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/tomcrosbystr/id/89"],"dcterms_temporal":["1919/1929","1930/1938"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Copyright: University of South Carolina. The transcript and audio are provided for individual Research Purposes Only; for all other uses, including publication, reproduction, and quotation beyond fair use, permission must be obtained in writing from: The South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, 910 Sumter Street, Columbia, SC 29208"],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["1 sound disc (48 min., 05 sec.) : digital, stereo. ; 4 3/4 in.;1 audiocassette (48 min., 05 sec.) : stereo. ; 3 7/8 x 2 1/2 in."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Burgess, Agnes, 1914-2012--Interviews"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"gzn_march_1036","title":"Oral History Interview with Carl Diederichs, November 13, 2007, part II","collection_id":"gzn_march","collection_title":"March on Milwaukee: Civil Rights History Project","dcterms_contributor":["Boucher, Jason"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Wisconsin, Milwaukee County, Milwaukee, 43.0389, -87.90647"],"dcterms_creator":["Diederichs, Carl"],"dc_date":["2007-01-13"],"dcterms_description":["Kosciuszko Park--Wisconsin--Milwaukee; 16th Street Bridge--Wisconsin--Milwaukee; Inner Core--Wisconsin--Milwaukee; St. Boniface Church--Wisconsin--Milwaukee; St. Elizabeth Church--Wisconsin--Milwaukee; South Side--Wisconsin--Milwaukee"],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg","application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Oral history--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Civil rights demonstrations--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Civil rights workers--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Clergy--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Catholic Church--Clergy","Riots--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Race riots--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Explosives--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Discrimination in housing--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Segregation--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Picketing--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Judges--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Municipal officials and employees--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","City council members--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Catholics--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Polarization (Social sciences)--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Bishops--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Race relations","Milwaukee (Wis.)--Race relations","Poverty--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Harassment--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Police brutality--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Civil rights demonstrations--Southern States","Segregation--Southern States","Murder--Southern States","Census","Canvassing (Church work)","Leadership--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Christian leadership--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","African American leadership--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Priests, Black--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Prejudices--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Racism--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Language and ethics --Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Social justice--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Equality--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Justice--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Anti-racism--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Poor--Wisconsin","Poor--Services for--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Charities--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Schools--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Church work with youth--Catholic Church","Catholic youth--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Worship (Religious education)--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Youth--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","African American youth--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","African American Catholics--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Clubs--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Catholic Church--Clergy--Political activity--Wisconsin","Church work with the poor--Catholic Church","Nonviolence--Wisconsin","City of Milwaukee Police Department","Groppi, James, 1930-1985--Influence","King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968--Influence","Gandhi, Mahatma, 1869-1948--Influence"],"dcterms_title":["Oral History Interview with Carl Diederichs, November 13, 2007, part II"],"dcterms_type":["Sound","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Golda Meir Library. Special Collections"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://collections.lib.uwm.edu/digital/collection/march/id/1662"],"dcterms_temporal":["1940/2007"],"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System"],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)","transcripts"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Diederichs, Carl","Groppi, James, 1930-1985","King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","Gandhi, Mahatma, 1869-1948"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1232","title":"Oral deposition of Victoria Bernhardt, Ph.D.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2007-01-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School board members","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Oral deposition of Victoria Bernhardt, Ph.D."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1232"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nDeposition taken at John W. Walker Law Firm, Little Rock, Arkansas\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\nORIGINAL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF vs No.4:82-CV-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL, DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS INTERVENORS DEPOSITION OF DR. VICTORIA BERNHARDT DATE: January 10, 2007 TIME: 5:59 p.m. PLACE: The John W. Walker Law Firm 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 APPEARANCES RECEIVE JAN 19 2007 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONllORI G On Behalf of the Plaintiff: Christopher Heller, Attorney Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark On Behalf of the Defendants: 400 West Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 John W. Walker, Attorney The John W. Walker Law Firm 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 ALSO PRESENT Joy Springer, Legal Assistant, The John W. Walker Law Firm Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box i4, Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 AGREEMENT OF COUNSEL. SWEARING OF THE WITNESS. I N D E X EXAMINATION OF DR. VICTORIA BERNHARDT By Mr. Walker. By Mr. Heller. COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION. * * * * * * * * * Cobb Court Reporting ORIGINAL P. o . Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 2 PAGE . 3 . 3 .3-38 38-67 . 71 I I 1 2 - 3 4 I 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 ORIGINAL STIPULATIONS The deposition of Dr. Victoria Bernhardt, produced, sworn and examined at the John W. Walker Law Firm, 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, AR 72206-1220, commencing at 5:59 p.m., on January 10, 2007 in the captioned cause at the instance of counsel for the Plaintiff, and said deposition being taken according to the terms and provisions of the Arkansas Rules of Civil procedure. It is stipulated and agreed all forms and formalities in the taking, transcribing, forwarding and filing of said deposition, are hereby waived by the parties, the right being expressly reserved to object to the testimony of the witness at the time of trial as to incompetency, irrelevancy and immateriality, other than those with respect to the form of questions as propounded to the witness. * * * * * P R O C E E D I N G THEREUPON, DR. VICTORIA BERNHARDT having been called for examination by counsel for the plaintiffs, and having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION Questions by Mr. Walker: Q. Can you hear me fairly well, doctor? Cobb Court Reporting P . 0 . Box #4 , Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590 - 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facs imile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORIGINAL A. Yes, I can hear you\nthank you. Q. All right\nthis is John Walker. Have you ever given a deposition before? A. No, I haven't. Q. All right. First of all if any question that I or Mr. Heller ask you is unclear or you do not understand it, would you be kind enough to let us know that you do not. A. I do. 4 Q. And ah, I'll try not to talk too fast or interrupt you but I would like for you to be able to give me a full answer and I'll try not to interrupt you and Mr. Heller and I hopefully will not talk at the same time. If there's some reason that you need to interrupt the deposition just feel free to just say it on the record and then we'll stop for a while. I don't expect this deposition to be lengthy at least from my part but Mr. Heller has a right to ask you questions as well. I'm prepared to begin--is there any prelimi nary statement you want to make Chris? HELLER: No. Q. Dr. Bernard--- SPRINGER: Bernhardt. Q. Bernhardt, I called you Bernard\nI'm sorry. Dr. Bernhardt when did you first meet Dr. Karen DeJarnette? A. Oh, wow. I'm trying to place the timing\nit was before she was working at Little Rock School District so it was ah, she Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box 14 , Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e -mail: gl oria .cobb@cobbcourtreporting . c om 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 OR\\Glt~AL was also working with-- I was working .as controller with the Gala foundation as well so it put it in ah- - oh , like either late 1999 I think . Q. All right . Are you familiar with her qualifications? A. Very much so . Q. I see. How would you describe her qualifications to 5 perform the tasks of professional evaluations and assessments? A. Ah, from my knowledge of Karen's work ah , I would say she is probably the strongest professional program evaluator that I know that's very much research based, she is extremely strong in the profession and ah, I have never known her to cut corners or do something less than full, full on\nI don't know how to describe it any other way. She has a lot of personal and professional integrity and I've always admired her work. Q. All right. What is your highest degree, doctor? A. PhD. Q. From what institution? A. University of Oregon. Q. In what discipline? A. Educational psychology research and measurement so that's basically statistics like to psychology in education . Q. All right. Are you currently on the faculty of any university? A. Yes, I'm a professor at a California State University Chico also I'm on leave to direct the education for the teacher Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box f4 , Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones: (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e -mail : gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORlGll~AL 6 initiative that I've been directing since 1991. Q. I see. With all due respect I have to ask you this since the court will not get to hear you directly. Would you tell me whether you have received acclaim for work as a person who engages in providing evaluations and assessments of school programs? A. Have I received consulting fees? Q. No, ma'am\nhave you received acclaim? A. A claim? Q. Yes, ma'am\nhonors and awards and things like\ndistinctions? A. Ah, yes\nyes, I have. Q. I see. And are you published? A. Yes. Q. Have you published a book or is it journal articles? A. Ah, both. I have published eleven books\nI have two more in press at the moment. Q. I see. A. And t hen several journal a r ticles also. Q. I see. WALKER: We already have, I think we have access t o your vita and we intend Mr. Heller, to make that an exhibit at trial unless there's some objection. HELLER: WALKER: In the fourth quarterly report? Yes, it is. Cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box #4, Sweet Horne , AR 72164- 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 3 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7 HELLER: Submitted to the court. WALKER: All right. Q. Now what was your work with the Little Rock School District and when did you begin it to your recollection? A. Ah, to my recollection ah, the work began in early 2005 and that started out with conversations with Dr. DeJarnette about how we were going to work together to ah, embed assessments throughout the district. So it started out with conversation, written proposal and then I believe my first visit with that proposal would have been ah, the spring of 2005. Q. I see. Did you have occasion to meet with her staff? A. Yes. Q. Are you aware of Dr. Ed Williams? A. Yes. Q. Did you ever have any one-on-one meetings with Dr. Williams? A. One-on-one, no. Q. Were you ever in a position to make an assessment of Dr. Williams' qualifications? A. Ah, yes--- Q. When did--- A. ah, Dr. Williams was apart of the team that came to, a four person team that came to our data analysis summer institute in Chico, California and ah, they were among fifty participants that worked with me and my staff for that, for a week, the last Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box f4, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones : ( 501) 490-0066 - Off\n( 501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 3 5 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORIGINAL 8 weekend in July 2005 and then I've ah, seen some of his work when I visited PRE. Q. What did you understand his responsibility to be? A. I understood Dr. Williams' responsibility to be a statistician ah, somebody that helped PRE gather data, supports from them evaluations, assessment in the schools and probably a staff member that did anything that was needed to support the data needs of schools\nthat's typically what a staff member in a program evaluation and research job would do I would say in a district. Q. I see. Did you have occasion to meet with the staff on more than several occasions? A. Every time I was in Little Rock I met with the staff ah, so I know April 2006, the August / September 2005 then of course it was basically the PRE staff without Dr. DeJarnette in Chico at our institute the last of July in 2005. Q. Did you discern at that time any conflict among the staff members? A. Absolutely not. Q. All right. Now with respect to your task did you have occasion to read Judge Wilson's compliance remedy? A. I d i d quite a while ago. Q. You did. In that compliance remedy he makes reference to the concept -of deeply embedding the assessment and evaluation process into the curriculum. Do you recall that? That's at Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14 , Sweet Home , AR 72 164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490- 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Fa csimile e-mail : glo ria .cobb@cobbcourtreporting .com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 OR\\G\\~lAL 9 Part B, Page 6-3 of the draft quarterly report update as of September 1, 2006--you may not have that before you but ah, that's the section which is entitled devise and embed a comprehensive program assessment process\ndo you recall having read that? A. Yes, and more than anything discussing how a district will go about doing that with Dr. DeJarnette. Q. All right. Could you tell me what is meant by first of all a comprehensive assessment process? A. Collect--- HELLER: John--- WALKER: Yes, Chris. Did you say something Chris? HELLER: Ah, ah, go ahead. Q. What is meant by a comprehensive assessment process? A. Well, to me a comprehensive assessment process for a district would mean that we're looking at the data that would tell us about the system ah, about its effectiveness, efficiency of operating, and would tell the district what's working, what's not working within the system, and how to close achievement gaps ah, how to measure to know if there are gaps or if elements of the system are not working, the way it actually gets implemented could be very different in any particular district but basically it means to me looking at every little nook and cranny to understand efficiency and Cobb Court Reporting p , o. Box i4 , Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Fac s i mile e - mail : gl oria.cobb@cobbcour t r eporting. com 2 3 4 5 6 7 \" 8 9 II 10 II 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 effectiveness and then to do something about it. Q. Could you explain what is meant by--well, first of all are you familiar with the term deeply embedding a process? A. Well, to me that means making it a part of the way you do business and making it a part of the daily work. Q. Is that sometimes referred to as the culture of the situation? A. It could be the culture, it could mean sustaining or truly implementing. Q. Are you familiar with any literature regarding that subject? A. Yes. Q. Is this a term that is in your opinion, one that is not capable of being easily understood? A. I think it's easy to understand on a surface level to actually do the implementation is really hard. Q. All right. On the surface level you've just given me a description of what is involved? A. Uh-huh. Q. And in terms of implementing it would you explain what some of the difficulties are in embedding the process deeply? A. Ah, the hardest thing is really cheap. You mentioned something earlier, culture ah, the hardest thing with the embedding new practices in a system, an organization, any organization is getting people to work differently because Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 OR\\G\\NAL 11 culture is really about--work culture is about how we do work and in order to get people in this case using data on an ongoing basis in a way that maybe they haven't done it before there has to be new structures put in place for how we work, how we look at data, when we look at data, and probably the hardest piece and the piece that makes it happen is strong leadership and in a district it would be from the top all the way down ah, principals has to be a part of this vision, everybody has to have the same vision first of all of what it would look like kind of like if we're really doing this and then how we're going to carry it out and then that piece has to be monitored and measured as well as everything else to make sure that we are working differently and doing ah, really embedding work differently. Q. All right. So a monitoring component is essential or if the process is to be is to work and become deeply embedded? A. Absolutely. Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether simple promulgation of a regulation announcing that you are going to do a certain thing is sufficient to constitute being a program evaluation p r ocess being deeply embedded into the curriculum of a school d i strict? A. Ah, just announcing that things are going to happen is not enough. Q. Does the announcement itself have value? Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box 14 , Sweet Borne , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : ( 501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n( 501) 590- 0975 - Cell (50 1 ) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e -ma i l : glor ia . cobb@c obbc ou rtreporting .com 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 A. The announcement has value\none probably wouldn't. Continuous announcements would in addition to training and ah, clarification of what we're talking about in terms of describing a vision. Q. I see. A. And for example? Q. Yes. A. And providing visual or structure to do the work. Q. I see. Is the importance of the process governed to an extent or determined at least to an extent by the relationship in the organizational chart of the PRE department to the top administration of the district? A. Okay, could you repeat that again? Q. Yes. What is the relationship between having the PRE department relate to the highest echelon of the district and the concept of the process being embedded into the curriculum? A. Okay, if for instance if a department like program evaluation research was trying to implement to embed assessment throughout the district I would say there's no way on earth that that assessment could ever be embedded without the support from the highest positional in a district. Q. All right. Are you familiar with the Little Rock School District? A. Q. Yes. Have you ever had any substantive meeting with the members Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14, Sweet Borne, AR 72164-0004 Phones: ( 501) 490-0066 - Off\n( 501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District? A. No, I have not. Q. Have you ever had any substantive meeting with the current superintendent of School, Dr. Roy Brooks, of the Little Rock School District? A. Ah, not to my recollection. Q. Have you ever had any substantive meeting with the Deputy Superintendent of Schools, Mr. Hugh Hattabaugh? A. Substantive, no. Q. I see. Have 3/0U had any substantive meeting with Dr. Olivine Roberts with respect to embedding the evaluation and assessment process into the curriculum of the district? A. Yes. Q. Can you tell me how many such conversations you have had with her? A. Ah, I would think probably two occasions I'm thinking, you know, when I'm in Little Rock I'm usual ly there for a week so I know that I had conversations with her in April 2006 when I was there and t hen in August / September 2005 when I was there. Whether i t was one, two, or three conversations I don't know\nshe a l so a t tended some of the training that I did with the principals and her staff as well\nyeah. Q. I see. Well, were you familiar with her qualifications in general? A. Ah, very generally I did work with her ah, on a leadership Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box 14, Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria .cobb@cobbcourtreporting .com 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORIGlr,.JAL conference when she was in Orlando. Q. And when she was in Orlando did she have a senior level administrative position? 14 A. I'm not sure what Orlando would consider senior level and I wasn't, I know that her position was ah, I think she's the director of Professional Development in Orlando but I don't know if it was for one area or if it was for the whole district. Q. Is that what she told you? A. That's just my recollection at this point. Q. I see. A. Yeah, she had to ah, she contacted her office and made the arrangements. Q. I understand. Were you aware that her primary qualifications were in the field of mathematics? A. No. HELLER: Object to that question\nmisstates states the premise. WALKER: Would you mind stating for the record Chris what's wrong with that? HELLER: Assumes the fact that's not in evidence and not true. WALKER: Did she not indicate that her degrees were basically in mathematics and her experience mathematics? BERNHARDT: Are you asking me? Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones : (501) 490- 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (50 1 ) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : glo r i a.cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 1 3 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WALKER: I was asking Chris. HELLER: Are you asking Dr. Bernhardt? WALKER: No, Chris Heller. HELLER: No, no, she didn't. WALKER: I see\nall right. 15 Q. Now did you ever interact with her and Dr. Karen DeJarnette and the PRE team together on a substantive basis at any time while in Little Rock? A. I--yes, mostly in a training scenario. Q. I see. Was that on more than one occasion? A. Yes. Q. All right. What did you understand her role in that training to be? A. Ah, my understanding was that she also ah, she and Dr. DeJarnette were responsible for me being there and that Dr. Roberts' position is the--was/is supervisor of Dr. DeJarnette and one of the sessions--well, okay I'll just stop there. Q. All right. What happened during one of the sessions that you were about to report? A. Ah, well one of the sessions was the training with principals but another session ah, Dr. Roberts was in and Dr. DeJarnette and also the PRE staff in addition to some other administrators and principals did an assessment on a continuous improvement continuums of the district. And so there was substantive conversation about how the district gathers data, Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box J4, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 ORIG\\\\lAL uses data now , have about a vision it's something that we took a great deal with, with a lot of districts around the country. Q. Is that the occasion during which you discussed the need for having a comprehensive data retention source? A. I don't--we certainly did discuss that at that point and time but I don't think that was the first time it was discussed. Q. I see. Did you make recommendations to LRSD regarding embedding a comprehensive assessment process into the curriculum? A. Yes, I did . Q. Did that involve or include development of a data warehouse? A. Absolutely\na way to pull out the data and make it accessible throughout the district, yes. Q. Did you have that discussion with Dr. Roberts as well as Dr. DeJarnette? A. I believe so. Q. Now what did you feel was needed that Little Rock did not already have? A. Ah, Little Rock like a lot of districts around the country it's very, very, very hard to pull the data together. Ah, there are data sources, there are data elements that are in nooks and crannies around the district and what they don't have it one way to pull it all together and be able to cross all Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that information to get much better information. Also, they don't have tools for a quick analysis and they didn't have a way for teachers or administrators, principals ah, district administrators, staff members to all pull the same data, all pull from the same data source any time they needed it or wanted it. 17 Q. How did you happen to arrive at these conclusions? Was it based on what you were told or did you otherwise learn that? A. Ah, it was part--it was in part what I was told and it was also in part from ah, PRE trying to put together data like ah, the institute that I mentioned that was at Cal-State Chico the last week in July in 2005 that the team attended ah, that's all about pulling that data together and understanding different report~, different analysis and I know from observing that the team had a very, very difficult time pulling that data t ogether, getting it reformatted, cleaning it and ah, trying to pull it into one source. Q. Now did you make a recommendation as to how they may go about pul l ing it into one source? A. Yes. Q. What was that recommendation? A. Oh, I recommended that they would get data warehouses and different warehousing companies, I also showed them the one that I use which is ah, it's called Easy Data Analyzer by Tetradata Corporation and ah, that warehouse would do just Cobb Court Reporting P . 0. Box #4, Sweet Borne , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtre porting . com 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 II 24 25   everything that we wanted it to do to ah, for embedding assessments across the district. Q. Was Dr. Olivine Roberts privy to that recommendation? A. Yes, she was. Q. Did she voice any objection to it? A. Not in my presence. Q. I see. Now did anyone, Dr. Williams or anyone voice objection to it? 18 A. Not that I know of. When I saw them viewing the product they were ah, the PRE staff I should say ah, when I saw them viewing the product they were pretty much blown away with what they could do if they had such a tool for helping them with the data. Q. I see. I have heard and there's a writing and there are comments that ah, you had a conflict of interest in that you recommended that enterprise and the conflict was because you were a member of the board that developed and marketed Tetradata. Would you react to that, please? A. Yeah, I'll react to that. Let me just tell you this: Since 1991 all I had been doing was working with school and school districts on data analysis and this kind of work. And actually befor e that I was also doing it but not as intensively as I started in August of 1991. And at that point in time one of the, the major issue that came up in every single situation was I think that the schools and districts were willing to use Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14, Sweet Horne , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones: (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e -mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com I II II I n n    5 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 the data it's just they didn't have the tools to do that. So what I did in 1991 was go beat on the doors of data warehousing companies all around the country and I have billet in California so that's most of them are in Silicon Valley and at that point in time there weren't very many companies out there and they all had business solutions and I tried to talk with them about adapting their product so that it could work for schools and ah, every data warehousing company that I spoke with, with the exception of one ah, pretty much slammed the door in my face and laughed at me saying there's no future-there's no money in schools. And I said there's a future in schools, this is our future, this is what's going to, you know, get you your next engineers to keep your company going. Well, no existing data warehous.ing company was interested in working with us with the exception of Rio and basically they just said let's just give you and application and get out of my way and ah, so we used their product on a demo basis or a pilot basis I should say and we gave them all kinds of information back, we set up pilot schools all over the place, I was so excited that we were finally getting tools that would help us all do what takes months, months, and months for us to do by hand that we could do it very, very quickly. We gave them recommendations and they were like yeah, okay, just get out of my way and I, I was very, very discouraged. In late 1991 the CEO of Tetradata, Mark Bertoski called me and said we are a brand new company Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box f4 , Sweet Horne , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones: (50 1 ) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(50 1 ) 590 - 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Fa csimi l e e - mail : gl oria . cobb@cobbcourtrepor ting. c om 3 5 8 l 10 11 12 I 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 there's only three owners and we're trying to build a data warehouse to do everything that's in your data analysis book. And I almost hung up on the guy because I didn't know how to take the call and, and I spoke with him about what they were trying to do and I said to him the minute your product can do six things I will come to South Carolina where they're located at my expense and consult with you for a couple of days\nand I still didn't know if it was for real and that's basically how the arrangement started. I went back for two days to work with them on what I would want in a data warehouse and I stayed an entire week because it was so exciting because they were able t o do things that I've never, I've never, I never before that point and time was able to do electronically and quickly and easily. So I became their main advisor and they did want to pay me but I refused to take payment because I wanted ah, I wanted to be able to tell districts that this is the product, the only one out on the market that will do all of these things that we talk about in comprehensive data analysis work. I'm currently the chair of their advisory committee and ah, I basically I use their product and ah, mostly the advice, I don't know I advise them when they have a question or they're moving in development ah, I don't know how that's a conflict of interest for the district because I'm not an employee of the district. There are other companies that have asked me to work with them and they are not committed to the kind of development Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14 , Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590 - 0975 - Cell (501) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com II 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORl GI l~AL 21 work that this kind of analysis would require and therefore I'm not working with them. advise. So Tetradata is the only company that I Q. Are you a stock owner of Tetradata? A. Ah, I have some stock options--no, I currently am not. Q. All right. A. At one point they talked about it. Q. All right. Are you on their board of directors? A. No. I'm just on their advisory committee. Q. All right. Now do you perceive a conflict of interest in recommending that a program that you have setup be utilized for the purpose of program evaluation? A. I do not see that as a conflict of interest because it's ah, I know that this program does what we want to have happen in the embedding of assessment and ah, so it would be a likely recommendation. Q. All right. A. I'm not going to recommend something that doesn't do what we're talki ng about doing. Q. All right. Are you familiar with Business Solutions? A. Is it a company? Q. Ah, I think that you mentioned it earlier\nit may have been called Crystal Objects or Business Solutions, Business Objects? A. Ah, I am familiar with Crystal--- Q. Crystal Reports--- cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box 14 , Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Fac simile e-mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtre porting.com 3 4 5 6 7 ll 8 9 ll 10 ll 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Reports. Q. yes. 22 A. Ah, when I was speaking about business solutions earlier I was talking about the generic term. Q. All right. What is your experience with Crystal Objects? A. My experience in other states, I didn't experience it in Little Rock but my experience in other states is that schools and districts ah, how do I say it nicely, swear at it ah, because it's very, very cumbersome, hard to use, and you can't cross the variables that you want to cross it's very, very hard, hard to use, there's a steep learning curve and ah, it's very time consuming, it takes a long, long time to do a few analysis so nobody like, I haven't seen schools or districts really do the comprehensive analysis that we'd like to see done with the footwork. Q. Did you learn that there was opposition to using Tetradata in the Little Rock School District? A. Ah, just recently. I didn't, I mean opposition, yeah. I do know that one of the times that I was, at one time when I was there probably the April time we talked about Tetradata and show them Tetradata, the next time I'm there I heard from Dr. Roberts oh, they were going to get Crystal Reports. So I just figured it was through the analysis and they're figuring out what was going to work for them and that's not unusual but I didn't hear that there was a big opposition. Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail : gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 3 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. I see. Did Dr. Roberts discuss with you the reasons for using business objects or crystal objects? A. Crystal Reports? Q. Crystal Reports, yeah. A. Yes, we just had a brief conversation about that. Q. What did she explain as the reason? A. Ah, I didn't--when she was talking to me about it in conjunction wi th purchasing another product that I think was going to do assessment for them so I understood it to be more o f a financial situation than anything and I also know what happens typically in districts is when they buy something like Crystal Reports which is really kind of like a software program that ultimately or either two years down the road they're going to re-buy\nthey will dump or drop that and buy the more robust engineered warehouse. So it didn't, I just thought that's whe re t hey were at that time. Q. I see. So they did not ask your opinion regarding the u t ility or r elative utility of us i ng Tetradata as over against what is it? A. Crystal Reports. Q. Crystal Reports? A. No. Q. I see. Did you include in your recommendation to Little Rock for embedding the comprehensive assessment process, the development of school portfolios? Cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box 14 , Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(50 1 ) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e - mail: gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 3 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Ah, yes\nwell yes, uh-huh. Q. Would you explain what that recommendation really was about? 24 A. Yeah ah, whether or not a good school portfolio that would be in quote or not what this means to me is that for every school and across the whole district there would be data collected on at least four categories of data and ah, a comprehensive analysis that would describe who they have as students, how that population has changed any over time so they get to predict who, how the population was going to change in the future and see the achievement results were processed like curriculum instruction assessment, you know, how do we teach kids, how do we assess them ah, how will we know that they're meeting the standards and what are we going to do when they're not meeting the standard and production which would be basically questionnaires of students/parents and then what that data would do when they do the comprehensive data analysis to really understand where they are right now in any school or the district is then division the curriculum, the instruction, the assessment that are the process is basically this ah, that are put together to get the outcome would be developed around what we know from the data and monitored and measured over time and then a part of that is also once a school gets it, a vision then we'd have to figure out what is the leadership structure for us to within every school not just across the district, but Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box 14 , Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phone s : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n( 501) 590 - 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e -mail : gloria . cobb@ c obbcour t reporting.com 3 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i) R \\ G I '\\ I {\\ L \\,J  \\ \\ Ir\\ 25 within every school to implement that vision what professional development is acquired ah, how we going to include parents, community and business so that we can make sure that kids can meet those standards and how we can evaluate on a continuous basis to know what we're doing is making the difference that we want. Q. All right. Do you know whether Little Rock ever developed school portfolios across the district? A. I know that Little Rock developed the district portfolio which is never totally done and it, well at least we got a start on that I should say\nI think they did the demographics and the achievement piece for the district. As far as the schools are concerned I do not think they developed those or got them started. Q. Can you embed the comprehensive assessment process into the curriculum of the district without development of school portfolios? A. Yes. Q. How can you do that? A. You can do it by doing all of the pieces. I mean whether or not you do a portfolio I mean it's a framework for looking at your data to know what you need to do ah, for getting a v i sion, a plan and evaluating it on an ongoing basis. So if they could do those pieces it could be embedded without them. Q. In doing those pieces does that require a lot more time and Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box 14 , Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(50 1 ) 590-0975 - Cell ( 501) 490- 0926 - Fac s imil e e -mail : gloria . cobb@c obbcou rtreporting . com n n D I I I I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1JRIGII I/\\L a lot more effort or is it basically the same? A. Oh, it would be basically the same. Q. So the portfolio were not absolutely necessary but just ah--how would you characterize them? 26 A. Well, the portfolio is just the framework and ah, what we were trying to do with it with schools which is what we have found in other districts is if we call it, if we're trying to develop a product it give more concreteness than saying oh, we're going to do comprehensive data analysis then we're going to get a vision, we're going to build a plan and figure out the professional development ah, school are more readily, usually more readi l y open to putting together the product so they have something to show for it but so that they have pieces all in one place that they can see the relationship of the pieces to one another. Q. Is that a correlation between the district portfolios and a data warehouse? A. Ah, absol--there's a relationship of the district portfolio and the data warehouse and that is the data warehouse would make the putting together of the data in a district portfolio easier and simplify it and ah, there's ah, this whole piece about everybody getting or using the same sources of information. Q. Have you any familiarity with the IT department of the Little Rock School District? Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box 14 , Sweet Home , AR 72 164 - 0004 Phones : (50 1 ) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell ( 501) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e -mail : gloria.cobb@c obbcourtreporting . com II n n I I I I 3 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 A. Not really. Q. Did you ever meet with anyone from the IT department of the Little Rock School District with respect to the development of a data warehouse or the development of school portfolios? A. Not that I remember. One or two of them could have been in one of the meetings or the training but I couldn't say for sure. Q. What has been your experience with IT departments with respect to dealing with program evaluation and assessment and embedding that into the curriculum? A. In general? Q. Yes. A. Ah, in general the IT guys always say that they can develop it themselves and specifically I have found that in most districts ah, if they start trying to develop a data warehouse by themselves two years down the road and millions of dollars later they're not done and--well, there's just a lot I could tell you but here's the bottom line is that while they're working on the warehouse they're not doing the work and if they're doing the work they can't work on the work that they're hired to do and if they're unless you hire lots of extra staff it usually doesn't work for the district to design their own warehouse plus now we have the tools out there, we have warehouses available that you can purchase that companies have devoted their development dollars to and it's much easier or Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (50 1 ) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com JI 11 ll n I I I I 1 3 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 it's much better if districts buy a product and use their IT staff to make it work within the district and ah, they have the IT staff help with ah, the programming of specific reports or standard reports that the district or schools would want and need. Q. Did you enter into a contract with the Little Rock School District? A. Did I enter into a contract\nyes. Q. What was the purpose of the contract and what were its terms? A. Ah, the purpose of the contract was to lay out the scope of work and to ah, purpose how much it would cost to do the scope of work and to get the agreement on both side that we would do this work for this much money. Q. Was the work that was recommended by you completed? A. No. Q. Can you tell me what proportion of the work remains incomplete? A. I just think we got started\nso two / thirds to three/quarters of the work still needs to be done. Q. Can it be said that the comprehensive program assessment process cannot be or has not been embedded into the curriculum of the district? A. Absolutely. Q. Would you explain that? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14 , Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones : (501) 490- 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 q 10 n 11 12 n 13 14 q 15 I 16 17 n 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Ah, I would say that the structures for gathering data across the district within every school and ah, have not 29 changed since I started working there ah, so I think the use of data probably hasn't changed much with the exception of maybe student achievement assessments that Dr. Roberts was working on with her staff and visited school teams. Q. That Dr. Roberts was working on outside of PRE? A. Yes. Q. So are you saying that there was a separate assessment process underway in the Little Rock School District to your observation? A. Well I think so but this would be assessment of the curriculum and you know like ongoing assessments that would hopefully predict the assessment to us at the end of the year and in that that's not unusual that an assessment tool would be setup and curriculum instruction and assessment but that's not of comprehensive data analysis system. Q. Oh, the one that she has is not comprehensive data ana l ysis? A. It would be an element of it. Q. All right. Does it appear to you that that is at odds with the court directive remedy that all the PRE be in one source and t hat PRE coordinates the program evaluation and assessment process? A. No, that--- cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box i4 , Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimil e e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting .com q u q q I n d   3 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 HELLER: I object to the form of that question as well. WALKER: All right\nI'll change the question. Q. Is there a utility in having all the persons engaged in program evaluation work together? A. Yes. Q. And cooperatively? A. Of course. Q. And without dissidence? A. Yes. Q. And conflict? A. Correct. WALKER: Just a moment. I'm going to take a moment, Doctor you can stay on the line ah, Chris I'm afraid to hang up so I'm going to step out for a moment and speak with Mrs. Springer and then I'll be right back to see if I have any more questions before I turn her over to you. HELLER: Okay. WALKER: Excuse me, Dr. Bernhardt. BERNHARDT: Okay. [A recess was taken at 6:48 p.m., proceedings resumed at 6:49 p.m., to-wit:] WALKER: Dr. I'm back on the phone\nMr. Heller I'm back on the phone\nare you there? HELLER: Yeah, I'm here. Cobb court Reporting P. O. Box #4, Sweet Home, AR 72164- 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 5 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25   BERNHARDT: And I'm here. DIRECT EXAMINATION CON'T Questions by Mr. Walker Can't: 31 Q. Doctor were you aware that with respect to data collection and data presentation to the outside evaluators that there was some problem with the accuracy of the data being assembled and passed on to the evaluators? HELLER: I object to that question as well\nassuming facts not in evidence. Q. Now you may still answer, doctor. A. Ah, I don't know other than what I've heard just recently about ah, dirty data if you will or bad data being sent to the external evaluator. I do know that when we were pulling the data together for the district portfolio or the district data source book ah, that a lot of that data was not clean and ah, yeah. Q. How do you know that? A. Ah, it's very easy to see dirty data in districts\nit's not uncommon, in fact every single district has dirty data which means that if you don't have a system for establishing procedures for entering data into any system that you have or in multiple systems that you have if you don't monitor it's probably going to be corrupt in some way. So like for example if a principal went into the student information system and wrote or entered some information about a student and--well Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14, Sweet Borne, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 3 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 n, i p I,, ....... II1  .1_ /\\, -...,,\\ \\_.1 I 32 like for your name they could, he could ah, the principal could put in John Walker, a teacher could write in J. Walker ah, another teacher could write in some information and code some data in there with J. Walker and somebody else Walker, J., and you would come up with four different kids. And so what it takes is a structure, a process, procedurally setup so that it's clear who's entering data and it's clear how they're going to enter the data and then it's monitored to make sure that it's done correctly. It's very, very easy to see when you start pulling together a portfolio of any sort it's very easy to see that there's dirty data even if you're not apart of the district. Usually what happens one of the first quarries that I do in a district might be looking at enrollment longitudinally or over time and, you know, I'll look at that data and go how could you have twice as many students in 2005 than you do this year? It's really is obvious when there's dirty data. If you haven't used the data ever I can guarantee it was dirty. Q. I see. And does that cause a flawed ultimate result? A. Absolutely, absolutely and there's a whole campaign nationally to get states to insure the quality of the data in all of their districts and schools because that is it's such an issue there's some data at the national level and at state levels we don't even know that have been reported for years, we don't know how inaccurate it is\nit's very common. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 Q. In your professional opinion what percentage of data is acceptable to be dirty and ah yes, is there a percentage or a threshold of acceptable dirty data? A. I don't know that anybody has ever put a percentage on there but ah, I just, if I could just beat around the bush to get to an answer to that. My latest book called Data Warehousing For Improving Teaching and Learning ah, I sent the first draft of the book out to twenty-five reviewers and these were reviewers in data warehousing companies, they are teachers, principals, administrators in the U.S., Canada, Australia. And I was physically asking that question, I made a statement in one chapter in the book about dirty data and how you've got to clean all the data and some of the people came back and asked the same question what is the percentage and they said they have in their experience ever never e xperienced a hundred percent clean data and so we should accept as a rule 95 percent clean data and being close enough with an error band. Q. All right. Do you discuss this in the book that you sent out for review? A. Yes. Q. What i s the title of that book? A. Data Warehousing To Improve Teaching and Learning. Q. Have you provided a copy of that to Dr. DeJarnette? A. No, I have not. Cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box 14 , Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones: (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e-mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 Q. Would you ask your secretary to mail me a copy with a bill if you happen to talk to her in the next day or two? A. If--- Q. Well, that's all right\nI can ask her that myself. A. Well, I can ask her this but ah, if you want the--it's in draft form. Q. That's all right, the draft form is fine. A. We're still working on it. Q. Well, it will be useful even though it's in draft form. A. Okay. Q. And I'm sure Mr. Heller would like to have a copy as well. A. Okay, it's still a mess but it's a lot of work to do on it yet. Q. Well, I'm more concerned about the area of your book that discusses this particular problem. A. Yeah, except you're not going to see it in the version that's available right now. It's ah, because that came from handwri tten notes, some of it came from handwritten notes from the reviewer that I'm incorporating into it right now. Here I'm in Hawaii and I'm looking at it right now, I'm just writing in what the reviewer are talking to me about so you would not see that. If fact what the reviewers had asked is that I add a chapter devoted entirely to the, on cleaning the data so that piece isn't available. Q. All right\nwell, that's fine. Well, let me see ah, it is a Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box f4 , Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (5 01) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e-mail : gloria .cobb@c obbcourtreport i ng.com 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 serious problem you're saying when data are overly dirty? A. Sure. 35 Q. That's just life though isn't it for most people whatever the subject is, if a thing is pretty dirty it shouldn't be used. That's a commonsense approach to the use of data and everything I would think wouldn't you? A. If the data is dirty yeah, I'd be cleaning it and setting up procedures and policies to make sure that it's entered correctly and then monitor it. Q. I see. Are you familiar with the questionnaires used in the process of the Little Rock PRE? A. Ah, I know that there are some, I personally have not seen the final version of what they're using or I don't remember them\nI have seen them. Q. Did you assist in the development of the questionnaires? A. I assisted with the first version and after that my staff member worked with them directly. Q. What's the importance of questionnaires in the comprehensive assessment process? A. Questionnaires add that wind from students, staff and parents to find out how programs, schools, districts can improve basically and if there's--it can tell about climate, it can talk about leadership, how students are treated, how staff are treated, it covers usually or we would want them to cover whether or not there's vision, a plan in place, and ah, get the Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box 14 , Sweet Home , AR 72 164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490- 0926 - Fac simile e -mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 3 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 system setup for success. Q. All right. Can questionnaires sometimes be referred to as surveys? A. Yes. Q. All right. And can questionnaires or surveys or by whatever name those type things may be called can they be subjected to professional validation? A. Yes. Q. How would you go about doing that? A. Ah, well there's two things you'd probably want to assess on a questionnaire and one is validity and the other is reliability. And validity is about are we asking the right questions, are we asking the questions that will get to what it is you want to know and that would be content validity. And to get to content validity you basically have to administer the questionnaire to many people of background somewhere to ah, who you really want to use it with and ah, basically have them review it, take it ah, talk to them ah, that's one way of getting the content validity. And ah, reliability says that if you give the same instrument over and over you're bound to get the same results. In other words everybody, if one person reads the question they will read it in the same way so that it's clear, it's not misunderstood, it wouldn't vary over time. And so if they're looking for reliability when you give the questionnaire over time you be getting essentially the same Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 4, Sweet Borne, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 results. Q. Were you aware of a group called the Public Education Foundation in Little Rock? A. In Little Rock? Q. Yes. A. No. 37 Q. Did anyone inform you that there were program evaluations or assessments being undertaken by persons other than Dr. Roberts and Dr. DeJarnette? A. Ah, if they did it didn't register. Q. Is a formative assessment a part of program assessment and evaluation? A. When I think of a formative assessment I would be thinking of assessments that teachers would use in the classroom with kids and it would be apart of curriculum instruction and assessment, certainly program evaluation and research should have access to that data and should work along with them in a typical district. Q. I see. Should the information that's assembled with respect to formative assessments be included in a data warehouse? A. I certainly would add it into a data warehouse . Q. And would this require therefore that all of the persons who are involved in any kind of assessment or evaluation process would at least have to know what each other is doing? Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com II q    1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 A. Somebody would have to know what everybody is doing\nyes. WALKER: doctor and I think you. I see. I have no more questions, CROSS-EXAMINATION Questions by Chris Heller: Q. Dr. Bernhardt this is Chris Heller, I'm a lawyer for the Little Rock School District and I've got a number of questions for you based on what you just told Mr. Walker. First of all, where are you located at the moment? A. I'm in Hilo, Hawaii. Q. Okay. And is there anyone there with you? A. No. Q. What did you do to prepare for this deposition? A. Ah, put my other work aside and I went back to look at ah, my proposal, the proposal for Little Rock School District and looked at some of what I did in the last year and a-half with Little Rock. Q. Anything else? A. Ah, I looked at some of Dr. DeJarnette's notes, most recent notes ah, but I, frankly I'm here to work so I haven't had a lot of time t o study them. Q. Anything else that you did to prepare for this deposition? A. Not that I can think of. Q. What notes do you have from Dr. DeJarnette? A. Ah, mostly there's a memo to you I think these were mostly Cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box #4, Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria .cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  things that were in report or ah, quarterly reports which I just skimmed and ah, there's a status, there are status reports--- Q. How did you get that--- 39 A. there's one that ah, I think they're probably attachments that you or Mr. Walker was referring to earlier about the status of the hiring of PRE staff and ah, mostly our proposals. Q. How did you get those notes? A. Ah, they were faxed to me. Q. When? A. Yesterday. Q. By whom? A. By my secretary when we--I was flying all day yesterday all day so I didn't talk to anybody they just were here when I got here--- Q. When did you first receive those documents--- A. except that I knew from my secretary, from a call with my secretary that there would be a fax with some notes. Q. When did you first receive those notes? A. When I came. Q. These were not notes that you already had in your office in California? A. Ah, somewhere like the proposal that we developed\nthe proposal, the contract that we had and that's all I was really interested in refreshing my memory on what we, our role was. Cobb Court Reporting p , o. Box 14, Sweet Borne, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell ( 501 ) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e -mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com q Q Q Q II n n  3 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 Q. Well, are there some documents you have with you today that you reviewed to prepare for this deposition that you have not previously seen before you got to Hawaii? A. Oh, yeah. Q. What are those? A. Ah, well the status of the September 1st , 2006 where PRE is so I think you probably have a copy of, there was a compliance remedy memo to Beverly Griffin from Karen ah, there's a memo to Chris Heller about the needs for a data warehouse or a data base to look at demographic student learning perceptions and financial data, and school process data and ah, basically that one. HELLER: I want to make all of those documents an exhibit to your deposition so would you keep the entire set of documents that you got from your secretary that you reviewed for this deposition and either ah--- BERNHARDT: That's fine. HELLER: one of you ah--- BERNHARDT: She'll have better copies than I have. HELLER: We'll make arrangements so that they can be properly appended to your deposition. Q. When is the last time you spoke with Dr. DeJarnette? A. When did I speak with Dr. DeJarnette ah, last week because ah, to try to look at my calendar to see if I could do the Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4, Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail: gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 5 6 7 u 8 9 ll 10 n 11 12 n 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 deposition. Q. Did you call her or she called you? A. To see if I could come to Little Rock. Q. Pardon? A. Or if I would be willing to do such a thing. Q. And she called you to ask you to give a deposition? A. Ah, she, I don't know--yeah, I guess so\nshe was asking if I would be willing to or interested in or available to talk about the school portfolio and our proposal and what we had intended to do. Q. How many times have you talked to Dr. DeJarnette in the last three months? A. Ah, that was the first time--I think that was the first time in that three months. Q. Have you communicated with her by e-mail or any other means during those three months? A. Well e-mail occasionally but I'm on the road 170 days usually a year so, you know, I don't get into the small talk. Q. When is the last time you spoke with anyone else from the Little Rock School District? A. Probably when I was there last which according to my records would have been April. Q. Did I hear you correctly that you've only been to the Little Rock School District twice, August 2005 and April 2006? A. That's what I saw on my calendar when I quickly looked at Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14, Sweet Borne, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com a n u n n I   8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 42 it this morning but that doesn't sound right, I think I've been there. Maybe it's only twice but I was trying to, it felt like I should have had a third date with them but I couldn't find it, so I didn't prepare for the--- Q. But did you discuss with Dr. DeJarnette any of the issues that Mr. Walker just questioned you about during your last conversation? A. During our last conversation we didn't have a lot of time because I had an appointment and ah, like within fifteen minutes of when we were talking and we were also looking at the calendar more than anything. Ah, I just asked what kind of information you would want in a deposition from me and how I could prepare and ah, she basically said that you would want to know about the school portfolio process and data and data warehousing and what I know about that. Q. So between April of 2006 and this latest conversation with Dr. DeJarnette you haven't had any substantive communication with anyone from LRSD? A. We would have I think ah, after April, after I was there in April we had a long conversation about our contract and the proposal and what was happening in the district as far as ah, our work and the trainings that we had proposed and mostly Brad Guise of my office had longer conversations with the PRE team about working with them on their questionnaires. Q. What work did you or--were your, your ah--- cobb Court Reporting P. o . Box #4 , Sweet Horne, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones: (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (50 1 ) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 2 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 A. Brad. Q. right, your ah, I don't know--what track of entity is education for the future? A. Education for the future is a not for profit organization that operates out of the California State University Foundation. Q. What's your position in that organization? A. I'm the executive director. Q. What work did you or EFF actually perform for the Little Rock School District? A. Ah, during the weeks of August 30th to September 2, 2005 I worked with PRE staff--it seems like there should be another date before that but I just couldn't find it today but I worked with PRE staff on their portfolio and ah, and did some training sorted or--- Q. What portfolio did you work on with PRE staff in August or September? A. District so there actually their district data as far or first book that was put together during the institute in Chico at the end of July of 2005. And then in August/September I did training with principals on looking at data on how to analyze and use data and what data and--- Q. How many principals were tracked? A. Umm, I don't know for sure. Q. Is it fair to say that you and your team at EFF trained Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com q q q n I II   6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 three or four representatives of PRE in how to develop a district portfolio? A. Ah, yes. Q. And that was done in July of 2005? A. Yes, and actually were doing it. Q. And actually the port folio itself was developed in part during the work at EFF in July of 2005? A. Correct. 44 Q. And then you trained principals in August and September of 2005 in the use of data? A. Yes. Q. For what purpose? A. Ah, to understand how to analyze it and how to look at all data, to look at their system and to get them setup to create their own portfolios for their schools. Q. Okay. And then what was done in April of 2006? A. Ah, from what I remember ah, April would have been the time ah, I worked with PRE to set up the understanding about the company and this is the work that we're going to do and I believe it was in April that we did ah, that I worked with like Dr. Roberts and Dr. DeJarnette and a lot of people I can't name right now, administrators and some of the schools in doing an assessment of the district on a continuous improvement continuum and I also facilitated some training done. Q. Now you said to Mr. Walker that--well, first tell me what Cobb court Reporting P. 0. Box #4, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones: ( 501) 490-0066 - Off\n( 501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com I u n II II n  10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 training did you facilitate then? A. A big picture of conference data analysis, what data are important, why that data is important and then how that could lead to student achievement improvements in the district. Q. Okay. Do you recall even by category of people who was trained in those things? A. Ah, I would not be the best one to tell you about the positions of the people. But ah, I think it was Olivine's staff, Karen's staff, some principals and I know there were other people from the district office but I couldn't tell you what their positions were. Q. What's the last date you have any direct knowledge of the content of the Little Rock School District's portfolio, the district's portfolio? A. The l ast time I saw it would have been probably September 2nd_ Q. And why did you see it on September 2nd? A. Because it was September--oh no, that wouldn't be true. It would be April, the last date I was there which would have been April 2006 because it was ah, I saw it because the PRE staff was really, really excited to show me the bound version of it and they wanted me to go through the data and I did an analysis of the data and ah, told them what I saw in the data, some of the things that I saw in the data. Q. Okay. And in fact you made certain data statements for Cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box #4, Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(50 1 ) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Fa c simile e -mail : gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporti n g . com 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 example such as ah, observations about the composition of special education and discipline and things like that? A. Yeah. Q. And you said you have not seen LRSD district portfolio since April of 2006? A. No. 46 Q. You don't know what the contents of that district portfolio are today? A. No, I don't. I understood that they were updating it but I don't know if it did happen or I haven't seen it. Q. And is the work you did or you do probably reviewing the EFF ah, reflected in written agreements contracts? A. Ah, yes. Q. For the work we just talked about how was EFF compensated? A. Ah, a daily rate and ah, is that what you mean? Q. Pardon? A. Are you asking about ah--- Q. What basis, is it a proposal for a particular project or do you recall how much EFF--- A. It was a proposal that started I believe September 2005-- I'm not looking at the first date ah, 2005 through the spring of 2006 and it was for training, analyzing data ah, daily rate of air, hotels, per diems, ground transportation and you asked about ah, the second part of the question? Q. Oh, just whether, I think you've answered it, whether there Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14, Sweet Borne, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 3 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 was a specific fee for a specific proposal or whether it's done on some other basis such as a daily rate? A. It was a daily rate and we considered these proposals ah, that's what we think is going to happen but we still only charge what really did happen. Q. Is there any work, other work that you've proposed but your proposal was not accepted by the district? A. No, this proposal was accepted, the one that I'm referring to was accepted. Q. Okay. So are you saying that there was nothing else that you proposed to do that the district declined to accept? A. No. We work together to create it, talked about what they wanted to have happen in the end and then work their way backwards into thinking about what it would take to get there and from what I understood from our conversations about what was possible in other words could be pull out teams of teachers or would we just have to work with principals ah, I created the proposal and sent it to them and maybe we refined it at the time back and forth especially dates--- WALKER: Chris let me interrupt you for a minute. Ah, I think it would be useful for us to have maybe a court reporter break for maybe five minutes. HELLER: Okay. WALKER: Thank you. That you, doctor. HELLER: Dr. Bernhardt if you could just--- cobb court Reporting P . O. Box t4, Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (50 1 ) 490- 0926 - Facsimil e e -mail: glori a . cobb@cobbcourtre porting . com 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i\n. f Jr\\'~- 48 WALKER: You can just stay on the line, you can just leave the phone up doctor--- HELLER: Okay. WALKER: And go about your business and we'll come back on after Ms. Cobb has a few minutes to take a breather. BERNHARDT: Okay. WALKER: Maybe you could use one too Doctor. BERNHARDT: Yes, I could. WALKER: All right then. BERNHARDT: Okay, I'll be back. [A recess was taken at 7:24 p.m., proceedings resumed a t 7:29 p.m., to-wit:] WALKER: We're back in. Dr. Bernhardt are you there? you a r e. BERNHARDT: Yes, I am. WALKER: All right. We're ready to resume if REPORTER: Thank you. HELLER: Okay. CROSS-EXAMINATION CON'T Questions by Mr. Heller Can't: Q. Ah, is there any work Dr. Bernhardt that you or EFF performed for the Little Rock School District that we haven't discussed? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. BOK 14, Sweet Borne, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e-mail : gl oria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q 11 12 II 13 14 n 15 n 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. No\nI don't think so. Q. All right\nso if there was an answer I didn't hear that. A. Oh no, I said no, not to my knowledge. Q. How many school districts are you familiar with Dr. Bernhardt across the country that have in place school portfolios right now? 49 A. I would have to take a guess at that because a lot of my training would be in sometimes whole states or regions where there are multiple districts that come to it and then and there might be three hundred people in the room and I don't know exactly what they implemented ultimately but I would say there's, well at least two hundred. There are districts that are also putting together portfolios based on publications that I maybe haven't met since in national conferences people come up and tell me that they're doing it and I wouldn't know any other way. Q. How many districts that you've worked with that have planning, research and evaluation department of the size and quality of the one in LRSD? A. Ah, I don't even know how to estimate this\nlet me just give you some background. Q. Okay. A. In 2006 I worked in 21 states and was on the road 151 days\nnow that's lower than the previous fifteen years. And a lot of these might not be on an ongoing basis\nI see lots of districts Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4 , Swee t Borne , AR 7216 4- 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : glor ia .cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 8 9 JI 10 JI 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 so and I've never counted but there are districts, large districts like Little Rock used to have program evaluation and research departments or bigger ones maybe ten years ago but now they're probably dwindling across the country it depends on where you are and what state you're in I'd say the size of the program evaluation district department and whether or not assessment is included in it or separate. Q. Is it fair to say in your experience that most of the districts which might have a planning research and evaluation department with the, of the size and resources of the one in Little Rock would be districts larger than LRSD? A. What's the enrollment of LRSD right now? Q. About twenty six thousand students. A. Yeah, about thirty thousand ah, again that just depends on state, region, but I would say it would be average or maybe even bigger than some. Q. Are there any other school districts in Arkansas to your knowledge implementing school portfolios? A. At this point in time to my knowledge, no. I have worked in Arkansas before and did overviews of school portfolios but it wasn't a long-term engagement to know if they ever did anything with it. Q. Okay. Do you know whether any other school districts in Arkansas have data warehouses? A. Ah, I don't know. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box f4 , Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(50 1 ) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria. cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 10 11 12 13 14 11 15 11 16 17  18 19 n 20 21 22 23 24 25 nR10111A i 1..j i 11...J 1 L 51 Q. Is it common for districts around the country to send their data on a regular basis, by that I mean every week or every other week to some central location within a state education department for storage? A. For storage? Q. Well, for--- A. No. Q. in other words the, whatever repository of the data would be at the state level rather than at the district level? A. No. And ah, where most districts the size of Little Rock are going right now is to data warehousing that would upload data every night from the student information system. Q. Can you give me an example of another district the size of Little Rock that would be doing that ah, be engaged in that process at the moment? A. Yeah, one in Grand Juncti on, Colorado\nSan Jose Unified in San Jose, California ah--- Q. How many students in San Jose--- WALKER: Well, let he finish the answer Chris, she was giv ing--- HELLER: Okay. WALKER: ah, she's mentioned two, Grand Junction and San Jose. A. I know that there are lots of districts in North Carolina and South Carolina that are--oh, there's lots of district that Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4 , Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Fac s imile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting .com 3 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rJ R I G ! i\\J A L 52 are, these are the ones, I'm just mentioning ones that I have worked with. Q. About how large is the San Jose, California? A . Ah , 3 2 , 5 0 0 . Q. Geographically as far as you know what would be the closest district to Little Rock that is ah, has school portfolios in place? A. That have school portfolios in place? Ah, there'd be lots of districts in Missouri. Q. Okay. A. In fact I've been working in the southeast corner of Missouri the last couple of years\nI'll be there next month. WALKER: Is that what they call Little Dixie? BERNHARDT: That's not the way I've heard it described. WALKER: Well, they have, it's a little name up there up near Blytheville. BERNHARDT: Oh, this is by Cape Girardeau. WALKER: Yeah ah. BERNHARDT: They call below Cape Girardeau the boot hill. WALKER: No, that's over closer to Fayetteville. BERNHARDT: Oh, that's not it\noh no, it's different\nyeah. HELLER: I think she's right and you're wrong Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box f4, Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490- 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e-ma il : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 3 5 6 7 u 8 p 9 10 JI 11 12 i 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 53 John, Cape Girardeau is right up on the Mississippi River. WALKER: Okay, well I'm wrong\nI'm glad to be. Q. Dr. Bernhardt have you ah--- A. Oh, Houston--oh, that's not close to Little Rock. Go ahead. Q. Did you have the opportunity to review any of the program evaluations that were done for the Little Rock School District by Dr. Ross and Dr. Katiyar? A. No, I did not. Q. You know Dr. Katiyar? A. Personally, no. Q. Does EFF perform program evaluations of academic programs? A. We do but what we--we do but we like to do is work with districts to do their comprehensive data analysis and build their capacity to automate evaluations of different programs. Q. Now we've, we've--do you see any distinction between the t erm evaluation and the term assessment? A. Yes. Q. Okay, what's the difference between those two things? A. Ah, assessment to me means more like doing assessments of student learning or that's what comes to my mind when we talk about assessment. Evaluation, program evaluation would be to me talking about or doing the work of looking at the effectiveness of different programs and if they're meeting their intention. Cobb Court Reporting P. o . Box 14, Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490- 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. So is there a different then between what I'd call a formal program evaluation and the general use of data on a regular basis in a school district to improve student learning? A. Would there be a distinction, is that your question? Q. Yes. A. I would make a distinction. I would hope that the comprehensive data analysis work would include the evaluation so that there's ongoing ah, there are ongoing measurement of quality. There's ah, there's also room for program evaluation to always be done by a third party, somebody that's objective and looking in instead of--looking from the outside in instead of the inside out. Q. But it's possible to do a program e valuation for e xample without having school portfolios in place? A. Yeah, the term school portfolio is just the framework basically and ah, yeah, you could do an evaluation without any, without schools ever looking at the data. Somebody could do an evaluation of someone without the schools having looked at it. The difference with the por tfolio framework is that schools are looking at, building the story of the school with data and looking at adjustments\nin a sense they're doing program evaluation when they do that work themselves. Q. Well, that was going to be the other side of the point. You can have valuable information from having some type of school portfolios in place and without ever doing a formal Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box i4, Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590 - 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e-mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 11 12 i 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 program evaluation of the way a program operates across the district? 55 A. Yes, as long as everybody knows how to do it, why they're doing it, and are really looking at all the data\nyes. Q. Right. So program evaluations can exist without portfolios and portfolios can provide valuable information that doesn't necessarily amount to what you would call a program evaluation as the program is implemented in schools across the district? A. Yes, except to that last piece\nI'm not quite sure if I heard that correctly. Q. Well, actually I'm talking about something that's in our compliance remedy where our program evaluations are supposed to look at the programs as they're being implemented in schools across the district. So--- A. You can look at it from inside or you can look at it--- Q. that's why I, I, I, real l y my point is and tell me if you agree that ah, school portfolios don't necessarily do that for you\nthey don't do that at all\nthey don't provide you program evaluation of for example early childhood on a district-wide basis? A. They would provide--if, if done well a portfolio would have al l the data necessary to do the evaluation. Q. And so would a data warehouse? A. Absolutely. Q. Okay. So ah--- Cobb court Reporting P. o. Box 4 , Sweet Rome, AR 72164-0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 3 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. There's an element of somebody looking, analyzing and knowing what they're looking for and what they're looking at that would be the piece missing. 56 Q. Right. And you said several times that school portfolios is just a framework and really a school portfolio is a type of school improvement plan is it not? A. I'd say it's a process and it's a product and it's a framework\nyeah. Q. And there are other types of school improvement plans that might use data to improve student achievement that might not follow exactly your outline of the school portfolio? A. That's correct. Although a good school improvement process should have a lot of the same elements of a vision, plan, a profess i onal development leadership to prepare you--- Q. Would you say that the requirements in Arkansas for the development of improvement plans at each school? A. I'm sor ry\nI didn't hear all of that. Q. Are you familiar with the requirement in Arkansas for t he development of school improvement plans at each school? A. Ah, yes. Q. Do you know what type of information is required of each school as a part of that requirement? A. Ah, I ' d have to say yes, I do and I'd also have to say I would want to look at it again. Q. Have you heard the acronym ACSIP, A-C-S-I-P, plan? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14, Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490- 0926 - Facsimil e e-mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 3 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yes. Q. Do you know what those are? A. Ah, yes, generally. Q. What are they? 57 A. Aren't those the plans that the state are requiring of the schools? Q. Right. And do you know whether or not those plans are required to contain the same type of information that you would recommend in a school portfolio? A. Yes. What, in fact I would say that school portfolio would go above and beyond that because the school portfolio are the framework of what we're talking about for data analysis is usually a lot more comprehensive than what states minimally require. Q. Do you know specifically what's required in Arkansas? A. Not right now. Q. Okay. Let's talk generally then. These types of schools improvement plans the states require would contain at least some of the information that you would like to see in a school portfolio? A. Right. Q. Most typically student achievement, demographic information and maybe some perception of that? A. Yes\ncorrect. Q. And that information itself if properly analyzed can be Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box 14 , Sweet Borne, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501 ) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (5 01) 490 - 0926 - Facsimil e e-mail: gloria.c6bb@cobbcourtrepor ting .com 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 useful in improving student achievement? A. Yes. A I Q. And are you familiar with the acronym SOAR in the Little Rock School District, S-O-A-R, student online assessment reports? A. Yes. 58 Q. Is that what you were referring to when you talked about Dr. Roberts being involved in other types of formative stuff? A. If that was what was just developed this last year because I know she was working with the pre-helm committee this last year. Q. And let me ask you if that process is to do quarterly assessments that are aligned with the state benchmarking plan to determine individual student problem, teacher problems, school or district-wide problems ah, is that the type of thing you would recommend that school districts do? A. Absolutely\nyes. Q. And isn't that a good example of using data to improve student achievement? A. It is--yes. It is not a com--that is an example of using data to improve student achievement. Q. And do you know whether or not that SOAR is currently being implemented in every school of the Little Rock School District? A. No, I do not. Q. Have you provided any written reports to the Little Rock Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box i4 , Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 3 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  r-,,. I 0\" I I ' ) l ~ l l J l l J r/\\\\, .._'. _ 59 School District concerning any of your recommendations? A. To like the board? Q. To anyone? A. Ah, not to my knowledge other than the proposal at the very beginning. Q. But for example regarding any process necessary to embed an assessment process are any other recommendations you may have made none of those would be written recommendations? A. Well, in the proposal on setting it up ah, essentially that's what our proposal or contract is all about is, you know, what I though after discussing with PRE what it would take to embed a comprehensive assessment process. Q. Okay. How much time did it take to develop a school portfolio? A. Ah, about a year . Usually it all depends upon how available the data are. Q. And what process should be followed to develop a school portfolio? A. Ah, I'd say the first--well, if you're thinking from my prospective or from a school prospective ah, let's me just say then ah, the first thing I do is collect the data to find out where are we right now and ah, that's the piece that takes the longest. There are a few things that can be done simultaneously ah, not everybody at a school or a district needs to be going out collecting the data\nyou just need a Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 3 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 60 '\\ small team working on that. At the same time you could be creating this vision at a school and the district if necessary and ah, and then development of a plan that's based on the vision and the data. Q. And so would the school portfolio be different for each school in the district? A. It should be because the data are different, they have different kids and the vision--the structure should be the same, the contents would vary depending upon each school\nwho they have as students, who they have as teachers, how they line up the teachers to students, their vision, the plan that they put together, how they work together. Q. So isn't it possible that some districts may be concerned about some issues more than other schools, I mean some schools may be concerned about particular issues than other schools and that may result in a difference even in the types of data they maintain in their school portfolio? A. That's true although there are guidelines for what data we ought to be collecting at least on an overview look and then as there are issues that come up definitely the data ought to be getting deeper and deeper, dig deeper into that forest or into what's going on\nfind out what's really happening to get to the root cause. Q. I asked you before and I think you said you or your company had done program evaluations, have you published any work on Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones : ( 501) 490-0066 - Off\n( 501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting .com 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 61 the subject of formal program evaluation? A. Ah, I just covered it a little bit in my books in terms of if you do this comprehensive data analysis work you would be setup for program evaluation needs assessment. Q. Right. And so is that what you say the relationship is between the comprehensive assessment work and a program evaluation that the comprehensive assessment work that's done puts you in a position to do a program evaluation? A. Absolutely. Q. And then part of your work with LRSD was not to perform any program evaluations was it? A. No, but in a ah, by setting up a comprehensive data analysis they should be setup to do their own program eval uation\nyes. WALKER: Thank you, Chris. Q. The, you worked with PRE and other I think to develop questionnaires for the Little Rock School District\nis that correct? A. Yes, but mostly my staff, I know Brad Guise worked with them on the content. Q. And you talked with Mr. Walker about the content validity and reliability. Ah, have those questionnaires been tested for content validity? A. The ones that Little Rock revised? Q. Well, let's say for example the ones that are used as Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box 14 , Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facs imile e -mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourt reporting . com 2 3 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 examples in your book? A. Yes, they are\nthey have been. Q. And how was that determined? 62 A. Well, we took about ten thousand students, for example the student questionnaire administered the questionnaires over time to get the reliability and validity ah, interviewed students. Q. So was that a determination that was made by EFF rather than some outside evaluation of the content validity? A. Right. Q. Is the same true with respect to reliability? A. Yes. Q. Now you work with I guess government entities such as school districts more than any other type of entity don't you? A. Yes, also I would say regional offices of that in the last few years\nregional offices where districts come to come together, yeah. I would say there would be probably our biggest contractor. Q. Have you seen a problem in districts maybe changing administrators or changing boards or the election changing the course of a school district with respect to how it approaches its curricular or evaluation or assessment type issues? A. Yes. Q. You understand it's fairly difficult for a government or entity to change and therefore the direction the entity goes will change as well? Cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box 14 , Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (50 1) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (50 1 ) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria .cobb@ c obbcourtreporting . com II - 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 63 A. Absolutely and that's one of the reasons I have a hard time telling you how many districts in our country would be using portfolios right now because I might be working with an administrative staff that is very gung-ho portfolio, school portfolio, district portfolios and then the superintendent changes and next year there is no portfolio or it might be just the opposite. leaders change. Yes, we see all kinds of changes happen when the Q. In Little Rock I mean you made the statement that generally assessment can't be embedded without the highest level of support\ndo you know whether in Little Rock the board supports the process of program assessment? WALKER: Now let me object to that for the record of course. We're talking about two different boards, one that was Mr. Heller's board and one that's not Mr. Heller's board. So the board we are talking about has to be identified. Q. Well, at any point in time Dr. Bernhardt do you have any reason to believe that the Little Rock School District Board of Directors doesn't support program assessments? A. No. Q. Any reason to believe that the superintendent doesn't believe in program assessments? A. No. Q. You testified that you made recommendations to LRSD about deeply embedding a process, is that correct? Cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box 14 , Swee t Home , AR 7216 4-0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(50 1 ) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facs i mile e -mail : gloria.cobb@cobbcour t r e porting . com 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 64 A. Yes. Q. I think we've established that those were except as to what's contained in your proposal the recommendations wouldn't be written? A. Ah, I would say not but this is the clearest ah, the clearest documentation at the time. Q. And what do you say, I take it that you have your proposal in front of you, what do you say there that you propose to do for LRSD? A. Ah, I have it right in front of me. That I was going to do some training with school teams, district team on the portfolio and comprehensive data analysis and ah, we were going to work with each school in the district on questionnaire services and ah, a lot of it the training and follow-up training on the first part of the change was of course understanding how to look at data, what data, would that data would lead to continuous improvement ah, other parts of the training would be about getting a vision and plan and ah, and then just having the follow-up sessions to monitor and continue with the training with the school team. Q. Is there anything else in that proposal\nany other substantive aspects of that proposal? A. When I look at it those are the biggest pieces of work for me to do. Q. Okay. When you made that proposal were you aware of the Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72 164- 0004 Phones : ( 501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n( 501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria . cobb@ c obbcourtreporting . com 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I I ('1Dif'.:'f f !\\ i t requirements in the compliance remedy concerning a comprehensive program assessment process? A. Yes. Q. And so that's the only writing we have that reflects something you said to the district about what saw would be necessary for deeply embedding an assessment process? A. I believe so. 65 Q. Now tell us about certain things that you felt were needed by LRSD ah, a way to pull data together, tools for quick analysis, ways for teachers, administrators and others to get data from the same source and you said this was based, verbally this assessment of need based firmly on what you were told. Can you tell me who told you there was a need for any of those things? A. That there was a need for any of those things? Q. Right, I mean you believe that--- A. Or a need for the tools? Q. You know whether or not LRSD currently has all of those things in place? A. In ah, in working with the staff at PRE as we talked about putting together--well, one of the proposals and I think this was done in person that's why there's not a lot in writing, as we're talking about how we would go about getting all of the data together this is a very common discussion as I work with districts. Ah, one approach would be . to have schools go out Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4, Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail : gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 3 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 66 and try to pull the data together or to have the district pull all the data together and in ah, provide you know the district do it first and then provide some data for the schools what they can pull together which I would highly recommend because it's much better to have few people pulling it, trying to pull together all of the data and then supporting the schools that way than having schools try to go get the same information from one person or four people. And in those conversations we talked about okay, what about your demographics, your student information system rollup in other words the student information system is the transactional database that would be in every single school and we would want the school's data to roll up into one district student information system and so we were already talking, we were already talking this talk with the districts and what about perceptual data and what about student achievement data it's out of the same location is that accurate is the demographics on the student achievement in the student achievement files accurate ah, so that we could do desegregations easily and--- Q. You know--- A. and--- Q. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. A. ah, you know what kind of program evaluations, we talked all these things all the time and they, there were data pieces all over the place or in different l ocations and that's how we Cobb court Reporting P. o. Box 14, Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell ( 501) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e-mail : gloria. c obb@cobbcourtreporting .com 3 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 talked about warehousing. WALKER: Now let me interrupt again. I think we're going to loose the court reporter because she's gone beyond the time that we promised, we had said was two hours. How much longer do you have Chris? 67 HELLER: Probably no more than 30 minutes. WALKER: Doctor, can you be available for thirty minutes tomorrow? BERNHARDT: No, I cannot I am--unless what time are we talking here? WALKER: Late at night, you know, any time at your convenience. BERNHARDT: I'm working with a group of schools tomorrow until about 3 o'clock--- HELLER: There's a school board meeting here, John. BERNHARDT: I wouldn't be available 3 p.m., so--- WALKER: Pardon? HELLER: 3 o'clock Hawaii time puts us into a school board meeting here tomorrow night. BERNHARDT: But I wouldn't be available until 4 o'clock tomorrow. WALKER: I think we're going to--Chris can you try to compress, I mean, you know I mean this is a trial for Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box 14, Sweet Borne , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490- 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (50 1 ) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e-mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtre porting . com 3 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 68 all practical purposes this is a trial deposition so could you, I mean do what you want to do but ah, I think Ms. Cobb is going to have to go\nshe's out of it. things as well. She's had a long day and other HELLER: Well, let me just ask Dr. Bernhardt what we can do, I mean what would be, I mean is there a convenient time we can finish this up for her before we get to trial? BERNHARDT: And when is the trial? HELLER: The 20th  WALKER: Well, you're not going to be a part of his case Doctor, so it could be, it will be before the 22 nd--HELLER: Well, I need to know, I need to know what she says. deposition. WALKER: We may not choose to use Dr. Bernhardt. HELLER: I still want to complete the WALKER: Well, I understand but you know, she has at least until the 26th or 21th--2sth or 26th . BERNHARDT: The earliest I could do this would be Saturday / Sunday or Monday. WALKER: Well, the judge is, we think we can do it, I think I'm available on Saturday or Sunday. the 14 th . HELLER: I can do it Saturday the 13th or Sunday Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box f4 , Sweet Borne, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490- 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e -mail : gl ori a . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I  69 BERNHARDT: I have to move locations on Saturday ah, so it, I'd have to do it either before or after. WALKER: Well Chris I mean I think that you've gotten to the point of where--well, I don't know why don't you take another 10 minutes and see if you got some more real questions. HELLER: Well, we're not, I'm just barely getting into some of the stuff that you asked John, I mean it's going to be a solid 30 minutes, I can promise you that. I don't want to mislead you. WALKER: Well, we're looking at maybe an hour and a-half then if you say a solid 30 minutes, so why don't we try to resume it for Sunday the 13th? t he v ictim. different? BERNHARDT: Saturday the 13th? WALKER: This coming Sunday. HELLER: Sunday is the 14th . WALKER: The 14th  HELLER: What time? WALKER: Dr. Bernhardt sets t he time since she's Dr. Bernhardt? BERNHARDT So ah, are you talking four hours WALKER: Yes, ma' am. BERNHARDT: Ah, on Sunday I could do it at 9 a.m., I could do it anytime on Sunday. Cobb court Reporting P. O. Box #4, Sweet Horne , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590 - 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail: gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com I I I I I 1 3 4 5 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 70 HELLER: Would that be best 9 a.m., your time, I suppose it would have to be. So 1 o'clock our time, John. WALKER: 1 o'clock our time will be fine. BERNHARDT: Okay. HELLER: Can we arrange this the same way\nI don't how you two got this--- WALKER: Yes, we'll arrange it the same way. HELLER: All right, great\nI'll be here. WALKER: That will give you an advantage so you have some better, some more questions. HELLER: It will give us all an advantage because I can ah, hopefully streamline things a little bit. Bernhardt. WALKER: Thank you very much\nthan you Dr. BERNHARDT: Okay. HELLER: All right\nthank you Dr. Bernhardt. BERNHARDT: You're welcome. HELLER: Thanks John. WALKER: Bye-bye. BERNHARDT: Bye. [A recess was taken at 8:11 p.m., January 10, 2007 to resume at 1:00 p.m., on Sunday, January 14, 2007.J * * * * * Cobb Court Reporting P . 0 . Box 14, Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Fa c simile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 I 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 I I I 71 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE STATE OF ARKANSAS ss. 429-84-1622 COUNTY OF PULASKI I, Gloria Y. Cobb, A Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the aforesaid County and state, do hereby certify that the witness, DR. VICTORIA BERNHARDT, was duly sworn by me prior to the taking of testimony as to the truth of the matters attested to and contained therein\nthat the testimony of said witness was taken by me, a voice writer, and was thereafter reduced to typewritten form by me or under my direction and supervision\nthat the foregoing transcript is a true and accurate record of the testimony given to the best of my understanding and ability. I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which this proceeding was taken\nand, further, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, nor financially interested, or otherwise, in the outcome of this action\nand that I have no contact with the parties, attorneys, or persons with an interest in the action that affects or has a substantial tendency to affect impart i ality, that requires me to relinquish control of an original deposition transcript or copies of the transcript before it is certified and delivered to the custodial attorney, or that requires me to prov ide any service not available to all parties to the act. 1 ./ _j/. /. 1 My Commi ssion Expires: January 16, 2007 , $!') \\, (, ,\" J 1-1 /lli-\u0026amp;u c~ . Gloria Y. p::obb, Notary Pul::!lib\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":262,"next_page":263,"prev_page":261,"total_pages":6797,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":3132,"total_count":81557,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":319},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":53},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":43},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":38},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"study guides","hits":11},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":9},{"value":"learning modules","hits":6},{"value":"worksheets","hits":6},{"value":"slide shows","hits":4},{"value":"quizzes","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40428},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35298},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4529},{"value":"Sound","hits":3226},{"value":"Collection","hits":41},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":25}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":4965},{"value":"Phay, John E.","hits":4712},{"value":"University of Mississippi. Bureau of Educational Research","hits":4707},{"value":"Baldowski, Clifford H., 1917-1999","hits":2599},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":2255},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2077},{"value":"WSB-TV (Television station : Atlanta, Ga.)","hits":1475},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"The State Media Company (Columbia, S.C.)","hits":926},{"value":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution","hits":844},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":778}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":9445},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8328},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5912},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5604},{"value":"Education, Secondary","hits":5083},{"value":"Education, Elementary","hits":4729},{"value":"Segregation in education--Mississippi","hits":4727},{"value":"Education--Pictorial works","hits":4707},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":4440},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3536}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966--Correspondence","hits":1888},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1815},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1495},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1071},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":858},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":814},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":719},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":674},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":626}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2598},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1915},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1704},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1070},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":856},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":806},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":625},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":605},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":440}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1769},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":969},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":853},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":366},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":337},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":306},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":214},{"value":"Poor People's Campaign","hits":180},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":173},{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":140}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":17987},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5437},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4847},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4599},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4328},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3948},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2536}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12823},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11313},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10220},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8493},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4733},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3786},{"value":"Florida","hits":2602},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2403},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1875},{"value":"New York","hits":1840}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10632},{"value":"1963","hits":10287},{"value":"1965","hits":10218},{"value":"1956","hits":9840},{"value":"1955","hits":9619},{"value":"1964","hits":9365},{"value":"1968","hits":9345},{"value":"1962","hits":9247},{"value":"1967","hits":8897},{"value":"1957","hits":8523},{"value":"1961","hits":8282},{"value":"1958","hits":8259},{"value":"1959","hits":8061},{"value":"1960","hits":7948},{"value":"1969","hits":7348},{"value":"1954","hits":7240},{"value":"1950","hits":7118},{"value":"1953","hits":6969},{"value":"1970","hits":6835},{"value":"1971","hits":6425},{"value":"1977","hits":6367},{"value":"1972","hits":6254},{"value":"1952","hits":6162},{"value":"1951","hits":6046},{"value":"1975","hits":5894},{"value":"1976","hits":5863},{"value":"1974","hits":5849},{"value":"1973","hits":5689},{"value":"1979","hits":5416},{"value":"1978","hits":5405},{"value":"1980","hits":5366},{"value":"1995","hits":4885},{"value":"1981","hits":4811},{"value":"1994","hits":4704},{"value":"1948","hits":4597},{"value":"1949","hits":4573},{"value":"1996","hits":4542},{"value":"1982","hits":4417},{"value":"1947","hits":4317},{"value":"1985","hits":4313},{"value":"1998","hits":4281},{"value":"1983","hits":4261},{"value":"1997","hits":4258},{"value":"1984","hits":4152},{"value":"1999","hits":4074},{"value":"1946","hits":4047},{"value":"1945","hits":4018},{"value":"1986","hits":4006},{"value":"1990","hits":3988},{"value":"1943","hits":3900},{"value":"1944","hits":3896},{"value":"2000","hits":3894},{"value":"2001","hits":3876},{"value":"1942","hits":3868},{"value":"1940","hits":3765},{"value":"1941","hits":3758},{"value":"1987","hits":3744},{"value":"2002","hits":3624},{"value":"1991","hits":3553},{"value":"1936","hits":3507},{"value":"1939","hits":3501},{"value":"1992","hits":3500},{"value":"2003","hits":3489},{"value":"1993","hits":3478},{"value":"1938","hits":3466},{"value":"1937","hits":3450},{"value":"1989","hits":3441},{"value":"1930","hits":3378},{"value":"1988","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3307},{"value":"1933","hits":3271},{"value":"1934","hits":3271},{"value":"1932","hits":3255},{"value":"1931","hits":3240},{"value":"2005","hits":3143},{"value":"2004","hits":2995},{"value":"2006","hits":2860},{"value":"1929","hits":2790},{"value":"1928","hits":2272},{"value":"1921","hits":2124},{"value":"1925","hits":2040},{"value":"1927","hits":2026},{"value":"1924","hits":2012},{"value":"2016","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2010},{"value":"1920","hits":1976},{"value":"1923","hits":1955},{"value":"1922","hits":1929},{"value":"2007","hits":1715},{"value":"2008","hits":1664},{"value":"2011","hits":1661},{"value":"2009","hits":1624},{"value":"2019","hits":1623},{"value":"2015","hits":1613},{"value":"2013","hits":1604},{"value":"2010","hits":1601},{"value":"2014","hits":1567},{"value":"2012","hits":1553},{"value":"1919","hits":1533},{"value":"1918","hits":1531}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":506439,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10710},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9628},{"value":"black-and-white photographs","hits":7678},{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":7513},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3623},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":3607},{"value":"black-and-white negatives","hits":2771},{"value":"editorial cartoons","hits":2620},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1955},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1692}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":41201},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17721},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8830},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":7090},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2186},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1778},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-CR/1.0/","hits":1115},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","hits":145},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":60},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":51},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","hits":27}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":4956},{"value":"John E. Phay Collection ","hits":4706},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3288},{"value":"Baldy Editorial Cartoons, 1946-1982, 1997: Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoons at the Richard B. Russell Library.","hits":2607},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":2335},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Alabama Media Group Collection","hits":2067},{"value":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","hits":2033},{"value":"Rosa Parks Papers","hits":1948},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1904},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections","hits":8885},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":8153},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4251},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3438},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2874},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":2825},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2785},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":81102},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":81360},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}